CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp.

Lorenzo Chambers filed an employment discrimination suit against TRM Copy Centers Corporation under Title VII, alleging wrongful termination. TRM countered with claims of performance issues and a violation of their anti-moonlighting policy. The court acknowledged weaknesses in TRM's justifications but found no direct or indirect evidence of discrimination, such as statistical data or prejudiced remarks. The judge determined that the employer's inadequate explanation for dismissal does not, by itself, constitute affirmative evidence of discrimination. Consequently, TRM's motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of Chambers' claims.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentRacial DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationWrongful TerminationAfter-Acquired EvidenceMoonlighting PolicyBurden of ProofDisparate Treatment
References
17
Case No. ADJ3235679
Regular
May 10, 2011

JENNIFER MILLER vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding the defendant violated Labor Code section 132a. The defendant argued the finding of discrimination was speculative and lacked sufficient evidence. The Board is granting reconsideration to thoroughly review the case, especially given the absence of the applicant's response to the petition. An order was issued requiring the applicant to submit a copy of her answer for the Board's review.

Labor Code section 132adiscriminationreconsiderationFindings and Awardapplicantdefendantworkers' compensation judgeWCJReport and Recommendationdue process
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 1997

Lurzer GMBH v. American Showcase, Inc.

Lurzer GMBH sued American Showcase, Inc. and The One Club For Art & Copy, Inc. for various claims, including trademark infringement, false advertising, and breach of contract. American had previously initiated arbitration regarding a breach of contract claim. Defendants moved to stay Lurzer's lawsuit pending arbitration, while Lurzer cross-moved to stay or dismiss the arbitration. The Court denied the defendants' motion to stay except for specific breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and good faith/fair dealing claims, finding the arbitration clause in the 1987 Agreement valid and broadly applicable to contract-related disputes, but not trademark ownership disputes. The Court also denied Lurzer's motion to stay or dismiss American's arbitration claim regarding advertising page limits, confirming the arbitration clause's applicability and the nature of the claim as non-past due moneys.

Arbitration AgreementTrademark DisputeContract InterpretationBreach of Fiduciary DutyCovenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingStay of ProceedingsFraudulent InducementFederal Arbitration ActScope of ArbitrationAdvertising Contract
References
7
Case No. ADJ9173159
Regular
Dec 09, 2016

GARY COTTLE vs. TONY'S EXPRESS, CALIFORNIA TRUCKERS' SAFETY ASSOCIATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior administrative law judge's (WCJ) order. This order addressed penalties for unreasonable delay in payment and sanctions for bad faith litigation. Crucially, the WCAB has not received a petition for reconsideration from defendant CTSA and requires them to submit a copy of their petition and proof of timely filing within 20 days. Failure to comply will result in the WCAB proceeding with only the applicant's petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5814Unreasonable DelayCompensation PaymentLabor Code Section 5813Bad Faith LitigationLienTimely FiledProof of Service
References
0
Case No. ADJ6502736
Regular
Nov 21, 2011

JUAN BARCENAS vs. THE BEST MASTER ENTERPRISES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, New Age Imaging Copy Service

This order imposes a $500.00 sanction against lien claimant New Age Imaging Copy Service for filing a frivolous petition for reconsideration without justification. The Board previously provided notice of its intent to sanction and allowed an opportunity to object, which the lien claimant failed to do. The sanction is for violating Labor Code section 5813 and WCAB Rule 10561(b)(2) regarding frivolous filings. Payment is due within twenty days to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board for transmittal to the General Fund.

Frivolous petitionSanctionLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561(b)(2)Lien claimantPetition for reconsiderationNotice of intentionGood causeOpinion and Order Dismissing Petition for ReconsiderationGranting Removal
References
0
Case No. ADJ9116549
Regular
Mar 13, 2020

EMMA MEDINA vs. SUNRISE RESTAURANT, LLC, DENNY'S RESTAURANT, CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, CHUBB INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case concerns the reimbursement for lien claimant Preferred Scan's copy services. The Board granted reconsideration to clarify what constitutes medical-legal expenses and the reasonable value of copy services. The Appeals Board rescinded the original award and returned the matter for further proceedings, finding that certain copy services for medical records were properly considered medical-legal expenses. However, the reasoning for doubling the copy service fee schedule was insufficient and requires further development at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimantCopy ServicesMedical-Legal ServicesCopy Service Fee ScheduleLabor CodeSubpoena Duces TecumExplanation of ReviewCompromise and Release
References
4
Case No. ADJ10194913 ADJ10194766 ADJ10194759
Regular
Oct 18, 2019

ABRAHAM ANAYA vs. BO ENTERPRISES, INC., dba SIERRA WEATHERIZATION CO., REDWOOD FIRE & CASUALTY INS. CO., c/o BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to address a lien claimant's petition regarding reimbursement for copying services. The WCAB reversed the original finding that copying the insurer's claims file was not a medical-legal expense, finding it was valid. However, the Board affirmed the denial of reimbursement for the employer's MSDS and additional reprint charges, remanding the case for further proceedings on the reasonable value of copying the insurer's claims file.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMed-Legal LLCJoint Findings and Ordersmaterial safety data sheetinsurance claims filemedical-legal expensesreprint chargessubpoena duces tecumemployment filesKaiser Hospital records
References
0
Case No. ADJ15495483; ADJ15494417
Regular
Sep 30, 2025

GLADYS SERRANO vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The cost petitioner, Platinum Copy, sought reconsideration of a WCJ's 'Joint Findings, Order, and Opinion on Decision' that denied their petitions for medical-legal costs and sanctions. The WCJ had granted defendant's motion to quash subpoenas and found Platinum Copy failed to prove their entitlement to recover costs due to unreasonableness and lack of necessity of the services. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, concluding that Platinum Copy failed to establish the reasonableness and necessity of the incurred services, including improper service of subpoenas, thus denying the Petition for Reconsideration.

WCABPlatinum CopyPetition for ReconsiderationMotion to QuashMedical Legal CostsSubpoenasContested ClaimLabor Code Section 5909Colamonico v. Secure TransportationAD Rule 9982
References
5
Case No. ADJ8092562 MF ADJ8222911
Regular
Feb 22, 2016

JULIA OZUNA vs. KERN COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision regarding lien claimant Associated Reproduction Services, Inc. (ARS). The Board found that ARS was acting as an agent for the applicant's attorney, making its copying services potentially compensable medical-legal expenses. Crucially, ARS is not required to prove that every copied record was specifically relied upon by the AME, only that the copying was reasonably undertaken to discover relevant information. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine a reasonable fee for ARS's services and address the claim for interest.

Associated Reproduction ServicesAMEDr. Roger Sohnlien claimantcopy service feesmedical-legal expensesLabor Code §4620(a)Labor Code §4622interestfee schedule
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Research Bureau, Inc. v. Kucker

The plaintiff, The National Research Bureau, Inc., moved to hold the defendants, a partnership led by Murray Shor, in contempt for violating a prior preliminary injunction. The injunction prohibited the defendants from publishing any directory incorporating content copied from the plaintiff's copyrighted directory of shopping centers. The court found that the defendants' Second Edition of their directory contained approximately 400 entries that were directly copied or "slipped" from the plaintiff's work. The judge rejected the defendants' arguments of de minimis copying, public domain claims for mailing lists, and ambiguity of the injunction. Consequently, the court found the defendants in civil contempt, ordered the impoundment of all infringing directories, and referred the determination of the defendants' profits and the plaintiff's attorneys' fees to a Magistrate.

Copyright LawContempt of CourtPreliminary InjunctionIntellectual PropertyDirectory PublicationData CopyingWillful InfringementJudicial RemediesImpoundmentDamages Assessment
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 190 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational