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. ADJ8316519
Regular
Mar 02, 2016

DENISE JOHNSTON vs. DENRU LLC DBA JAMAICA PLACE

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the Applicant, Denise Johnston, which the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has denied. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the findings and report of the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The WCAB gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations, finding no substantial evidence to warrant rejecting them. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ credibility determinationsGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.evidence of substantialityadministrative law judgeDENRU LLC DBA JAMAICA PLACEDENISE JOHNSTONdenied reconsiderationOakland District Office
References
1
Case No. CA 15-01542
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2016

JOHNSTON'S L.P. GAS SERVICE, INC., GABRIEL, HUGO RAFAEL RAMIREZ v

Plaintiffs, undocumented farm workers, suffered injuries from a propane gas explosion in their living quarters, leading to an action against Johnston’s L.P. Gas Service, Inc., the propane supplier. Johnston’s initiated a third-party action against the farm owners and plaintiffs' employers, the DeMarco defendants, seeking contribution or indemnification. The Supreme Court denied Johnston’s summary judgment motion and partially denied the DeMarco defendants' motion. The Appellate Division modified the order, dismissing claims against Johnston’s regarding propane odorization and granting the DeMarco defendants' motion concerning plaintiff Lucio Jimenez Gabriel due to workers' compensation exclusivity and the absence of a 'grave injury.' The court affirmed the denial of Johnston’s motion regarding causation and failure to warn, citing unresolved factual issues.

Propane ExplosionWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjurySummary JudgmentFailure to WarnCausationEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionFacial DisfigurementUndocumented Farm Workers
References
14
Case No. CV-23-1516
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Marnie Johnston

Marnie Johnston, a factory metal worker, sustained a work-related left shoulder injury in June 2020. After two surgeries and several medical evaluations, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found her injury reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and awarded a 50% schedule loss of use (SLU) for her left arm, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. Johnston appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, modified the Board's decision, ruling that it was improper to determine the SLU percentage based on medical reports not specifically conducted for permanency evaluation or without proper Range of Motion (ROM) measurements as per the 2018 guidelines. The case has been remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the Appellate Division's decision.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Range of Motion (ROM)Appellate DivisionMedical EvaluationOrthopedic InjuryShoulder InjurySurgical ProcedureMedical Guidelines
References
8
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00504 [234 AD3d 1220]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2025

Matter of Johnston v. Howmet Aerospace Inc.

Marnie Johnston, a factory worker, sustained a work-related left shoulder injury in June 2020, leading to two surgeries and temporary indemnity benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a 50% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for her left arm, relying on early medical reports from January 2022 that found 90 degrees for forward flexion and abduction. Claimant appealed, arguing that later permanency evaluations showed higher ROM deficits and that the earlier reports were insufficient for SLU determination as MMI had not been established. The Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the Board's decision, ruling that it was improper to base the SLU award on medical reports not conducted for permanency evaluation and without confirmation of MMI. The court reversed the 50% SLU finding and remitted the matter back to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

Workers' Compensation BoardSchedule Loss of UseMaximum Medical ImprovementRange of MotionAppellate ReviewMedical EvaluationTreating PhysicianShoulder InjurySurgical RepairRemittal
References
8
Case No. ADJ14895207; ADJ162421; ADJ14895259; ADJ14894712
Regular
Feb 13, 2023

DENISE ARMTROUT vs. PLEASANTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN ASSOCIATES

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denying her petition. The applicant, Denise Armtrout, sought authorization for lymphatic massage therapy for lymphedema. Independent medical review initially denied the treatment, citing a lack of evidence for its necessity and the applicant's ability to perform self-treatment. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and denied reconsideration, upholding the prior decision to deny the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionIndependent Medical Review (IMR)Lymphatic MassageLymphedemaChild Nutrition SpecialistAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Utilization Review (UR)Plainly Erroneous Finding of Fact
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnston v. Sonat Marine, Inc.

Plaintiff William Johnston filed a negligence action against the owner/operator of the barge Interstate 70 after falling from a ladder while attempting to board the vessel on February 28, 1983. He alleged the tug Traveler moved, causing him to fall and sustain various injuries, including blepharospasm and psychological distress. The court, presided over by District Judge McLaughlin, conducted a bench trial and found that the tug did not move and that the barge and ladder were adequately secured. Despite conflicting medical testimonies regarding the causation of Johnston's conditions, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove a breach of duty on the part of the defendant. Consequently, judgment was entered for the defendant, as the court found plaintiff simply slipped and his damages were not a result of the defendant's negligence.

NegligenceMaritime LawPersonal InjuryLadder FallBarge AccidentHead TraumaBlepharospasmPsychological InjuryCausationMedical Experts
References
1
Case No. ADJ4283233
Regular
Aug 03, 2009

GARY JOHNSTON vs. BAY PACIFIC PIPELINES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns Gary Johnston's claim for workers' compensation benefits for a cumulative injury to his cervical spine. Initially, the workers' compensation judge denied the claim, finding no industrial injury and citing the statute of limitations. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversed the initial decision, and found that Johnston sustained a cumulative injury that was not time-barred. The Board has now denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming its prior decision that the applicant's cervical spine injury is compensable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryCervical SpinePipe LayerStatute of LimitationsReconsideration DeniedFindings and OrderOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationCompensability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1998

Lopez v. Tarana

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in three related actions concerning wrongful death and personal injuries stemming from a car accident. An intoxicated employee, Cynthia Tarana, after drinking at an unofficial work event, caused an accident resulting in one death and two injuries. The Supreme Court initially found Tarana negligent and her employer, C & H Pizza Corp., and supervisor, Denise LaBarbera, liable under the 'social host' statute, awarding damages to the plaintiffs Annette Lopez, Kara Kissane, and Catherine Rubino. The appellate court reversed the judgment, citing errors in determining the supervisor's scope of employment, the omission of fault apportionment for the employer and driver, and the award of damages to Annette Lopez without proof of economic loss. Consequently, the complaint seeking damages for Annette Lopez personally was dismissed, and a new trial was granted for the remaining causes of action.

Wrongful deathPersonal injuryVehicular manslaughterIntoxicated drivingSocial host liabilityScope of employmentJury verdictDamagesAppellate reviewReversal
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06248 [164 AD3d 1458]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2018

Neve v. City of New York

Plaintiff Anthony Neve, a New York City Sanitation worker, was allegedly injured when the seat of a street sweeper he operated collapsed. He sued the City of New York for negligence. The City initiated third-party actions against Johnston Sweeper Company (manufacturer) and Seats, Inc. (seat manufacturer). Following the City's disposal of the sweeper, the plaintiff was granted an adverse inference charge for spoliation of evidence. Both the plaintiff and Johnston Sweeper Company moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, clarifying that the adverse inference charge did not eliminate the plaintiff's burden to prove all elements of his negligence claim, including the defect's existence and causation.

spoliation of evidencesummary judgmentadverse inferencenegligencepersonal injurythird-party actionproduct liabilityappellate reviewmunicipal liabilitysanitation worker
References
4
Case No. ADJ7103630
Regular
May 21, 2012

DENISE SANCHES vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case involves Denise Sanches' workers' compensation claim against the County of Sacramento. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Sanches' Petition for Removal as untimely. The dismissal was based on the petition being filed on March 8, 2012, which was more than the allowed 25 days after the February 13, 2012, decision. This delay violated the time limits prescribed by 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 10843 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1013.

Petition for RemovalUntimelyDecision DateFiling Date25 Days20 Days8 Cal. Code Regs. 10843Code of Civil Procedure § 1013Served by MailDismissed
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 65 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