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

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Monahan v. Remington Rand, Inc.

A self-insured employer appealed a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision granting death benefits to the widow of a deceased employee. The core issue was whether the employee's death resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The employee, an outside service man, was killed in a car accident on his way home after volunteering to repair a machine for his employer in Albany. The Board determined he remained an outside worker and that the accident was work-related. The appellate court affirmed, finding the Board's decision justified by the evidence, as the work performed was clearly for the employer's benefit.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsOutside WorkerCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentSelf-Insured EmployerAppellate ReviewVoluntary WorkFatal AccidentBoard Decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Watson v. Vogue Metalcraft, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that awarded death benefits to the mother of a deceased employee. The employee sustained fatal injuries in an explosion at her workplace on July 24, 1980. The central issue on appeal was the validity of the board's finding that the mother was a dependent according to the Workers' Compensation Law. The court reviewed the record and concluded that there was ample support for the board's determination. Consequently, the decision was affirmed, with costs awarded to the Workers' Compensation Board.

Death BenefitsDependency ClaimWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate DecisionFatal AccidentExplosion IncidentEmployee RightsBoard DeterminationCourt Costs
References
2
Case No. ADJ9100288
Regular
May 17, 2018

GILBERT CORTEZ (Deceased), NOHEMA CORTEZ (Surviving Spouse & Guardian Ad Litem), et al. vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Legally Uninsured, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND (Claims Administrator)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior decision concerning death benefits for the deceased employee's children, Andres and Marisa Cortez. The WCAB remanded the case to the administrative law judge to properly join the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and determine the entitlement to and coordination of workers' compensation death benefits with CalPERS special death benefits. The WCAB clarified that the "good cause" standard under *Antrim* applies and that CalPERS benefits may offset workers' compensation benefits to avoid duplicate payments. Further proceedings are required to consider the specific claims of dependency and the impact of CalPERS payments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCDCRSCIFCalPERSdeath benefitsdependent childrenspecial death benefitsoffsetAntrim standardLabor Code section 4707
References
7
Case No. 05-21-00466-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2022

NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC v. ESI/Employee Solutions, LP

This case involves an appeal regarding the enforceability of an indemnity agreement between NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC (appellants) and ESI/Employee Solutions, LP and Employee Solutions Arlington, LLC (appellees). The dispute arose after an employee, Timothy Price, assigned by ES Arlington to RPG, suffered severe injuries while operating a forklift without proper certification. Price sued ES Arlington for negligence. Appellees sought indemnification from appellants based on their staffing agreement. The trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, ordering appellants to indemnify them. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the indemnity provision did not meet the express negligence test because appellees were seeking indemnification for their own alleged negligence. The court rendered judgment for appellants regarding attorney's fees and costs incurred in Price's lawsuit and remanded the remaining indemnification claims to the trial court.

Indemnity AgreementExpress Negligence TestSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation PolicyForklift AccidentStaffing AgreementNegligence ClaimsAttorney's FeesContractual IndemnificationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klumb v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension System

The case involves a dispute over the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) board's authority to define 'employee' for pension eligibility. Petitioners, former City of Houston employees transferred to a third-party entity (CCSI), sought retirement benefits or cessation of pension contributions, arguing they were no longer City employees. The pension board, however, determined these employees remained 'members' due to the City's effective control over their new employer. The trial court and court of appeals dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing the statutory preclusion of judicial review for HMEPS decisions. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed, concluding that the pension board acted within its broad statutory authority and that the petitioners' ultra vires, equal protection, and due course of law claims were invalid as they lacked vested property rights in the pension benefits.

Pension LawStatutory InterpretationJudicial ReviewUltra ViresSovereign ImmunityEqual ProtectionDue Course of LawVested RightsMunicipal EmployeesOutsourcing
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 1978

Fortunato v. Crocker Co.

This case involves an appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that awarded death benefits to the widow of a deceased employee. The Board found that the decedent, an apartment building superintendent, fell while working and that a subsequent fatal heart attack was causally related to the fall. Despite conflicting medical evidence regarding the cause of death (whether a pre-existing heart condition led to a collapse or a fall precipitated a cardiac event), the court affirmed the Board's decision. The court relied on the presumption of accidental fall under section 21 of the Workers' Compensation Law, supported by the decedent being last seen with cleaning supplies in an oily area, and medical testimony linking the fall to his death.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCausal RelationHeart AttackAccidental FallPresumption of AccidentMedical Evidence ConflictEmployment InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) initiated an action against the County of Nassau, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the proper salary plan for CETA-funded employees who transitioned to county-funded positions after January 1, 1977. CSEA contended that these workers, having commenced service prior to the cut-off date, were 'employees' under existing collective bargaining agreements and should remain on the 'Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan A). The County argued they were 'new employees' after 1976, falling under the 'Non-Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan B). The court reviewed the federal CETA legislation, the collective bargaining agreement, and the County's past conduct towards CETA workers, which consistently treated them as county employees with various benefits. Concluding that CETA workers qualified as 'employees' from their initial service date, the court ruled in favor of CSEA. The decision mandates that these workers be continued under Plan A, citing principles of statutory parity, established case law, and the policy goals of the CETA program for upward mobility.

Collective BargainingSalary PlansCETA ProgramPublic EmploymentEmployee RightsDeclaratory JudgmentCivil Service LawUnion RepresentationStatutory InterpretationGovernment Employees
References
2
Case No. ADJ9839444; ADJ8274021; ADJ8272270; ADJ8272417
Regular
Jul 20, 2017

TONY NAVARRO (Deceased), JENNIFER NAVARRO (Widow) vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CALPERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STATE EMPLOYEES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the decision awarding death benefits to the widow of Tony Navarro. The Board gave great weight to the Administrative Law Judge's credibility determination, finding no substantial evidence to overturn it. They also noted that the opinion of one physician can constitute substantial evidence, even if it conflicts with others. The judge's finding that Mr. Navarro's prescribed medications contributed to his death was deemed persuasive and analogous to established case law.

CALPERSSCIFCorrectional SergeantCardiac arrestGastric bleedHemorrhagic gastritisVentricular fibrillationQualified Medical ExaminationCoroner's opinionSubstantial evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LIN Television Corp. v. National Ass'n of Broadcast Employees & Technicians—Communications Workers

Plaintiff LIN Television Corporation sought to vacate a labor arbitration award that reinstated employee Timothy Flynn after his termination for making threats. Defendants, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians—Communications Workers of America, counter-claimed to enforce the award. The arbitration found no "just cause" for termination, converting it to a suspension and mandating a positive psychiatric evaluation for Flynn's return. The U.S. District Court, reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, confirmed the arbitration award. The court ruled that the award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and did not violate public policy regarding workplace safety, thereby denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendants' motion.

Labor DisputeArbitration AwardVacaturEnforcementWorkplace SafetyCollective Bargaining AgreementJust CauseEmployee TerminationMental Health EvaluationFederal Court Review
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 9,054 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