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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Karam v. Executive Charge/Love Taxi

Claimant initiated a workers' compensation case, leading to a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge finding an employer-employee relationship with Executive Charge/Love Taxi. This finding was affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which rejected the independent contractor argument. Executive Charge/Love Taxi appealed this interlocutory decision. The appellate court, citing precedent from *Matter of Dubnoff v Feathers Sportswear*, determined that the Board's ruling on employment status was not a final or 'threshold legal issue' warranting immediate review. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the policy against piecemeal review of substantive issues in compensation cases.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorInterlocutory AppealAppellate ReviewJurisdictionPiecemeal ReviewBoard DecisionDismissed AppealWorkers' Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stair v. Calhoun

Plaintiffs' counsel, Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., moved to withdraw from representing plaintiffs and sought a charging and retaining lien due to plaintiff Theodore Stair's substantial unpaid legal fees. Stair opposed the withdrawal, citing a pending settlement. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw, finding Stair's prolonged failure to pay constituted deliberate disregard of his financial obligations. The court also granted a charging lien for $37,546.87, representing adjusted reasonable hours and expenses, but denied the motion for a retaining lien to prevent prejudice to the ongoing litigation and due to Stair's alleged indigence.

Withdrawal of CounselCharging LienRetaining LienUnpaid Legal FeesAttorney-Client RelationshipDeliberate DisregardQuantum MeruitShareholder DilutionMotion PracticeFee Dispute
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. Cuevas

Petitioner filed an improper practice charge against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging that Level I supervisors were performing work previously exclusive to Level II supervisors, specifically zone supervision, booth audits, and investigations. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found a violation for zone supervision but not for the other tasks. PERB subsequently reversed the ALJ's decision regarding zone supervision, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish exclusivity. The petitioner then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination. The court, reviewing PERB's decision for substantial evidence, found that the petitioner did not meet its burden of demonstrating exclusivity for any of the disputed tasks due to significant overlap in supervisor duties. Consequently, PERB's determination dismissing the improper practice charge was confirmed.

improper practicepublic sector laborsupervisory rolesjob dutiesexclusivityCPLR article 78PERBNYCTACivil Service Lawzone supervision
References
7
Case No. SDO 0327934
Regular
Feb 11, 2008

ROLLIE BRUBAKER vs. CONVERA, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a prior order. While generally affirming the original decision, the Board added a finding allowing the lien claimant reimbursement for copying charges, plus penalty and interest under Labor Code section 4603.2. The Board also amended the payment orders to reflect this additional award for the report copy.

WCABReconsiderationLien ClaimantAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code section 4603.2Labor Code section 5813PenaltyInterestCopying FeeReport Preparation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Katakam

The defendant, a former computer consultant, was indicted on multiple computer crime charges for copying proprietary script files from Goldman Sachs before joining J.P. Morgan. The court considered motions to dismiss the indictment, evaluating the sufficiency of evidence for unlawful duplication of computer-related material, criminal possession, and computer trespass under Penal Law article 156. While finding insufficient evidence for computer trespass and one count of unlawful duplication due to the lack of unauthorized access or intent to commit trespass, the court upheld charges for unlawful duplication (based on economic value) and criminal possession. The judge denied the motion to dismiss in furtherance of justice, emphasizing the societal need to deter computer crime despite the defendant's personal consequences.

computer crimeunlawful duplicationcriminal possessioncomputer trespassindictmentPenal LawGrand Juryproprietary softwareGoldman SachsJ.P. Morgan
References
0
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

Holland Laundry, Inc. v. Simon

This case concerns an action brought by the plaintiffs to enjoin the defendants from pursuing certain charges before the State Labor Board. The court considered the respondent's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The order granting this motion was affirmed. No opinion was provided for this decision, with Presiding Justice Lazansky, along with Justices Carswell, Johnston, Taylor, and Close, concurring.

InjunctionLabor LawMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintAffirmedCourt OrderConcurring Justices
References
0
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,059 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