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

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2000

Bordeau v. Village of Deposit

Plaintiffs Brian K. Bordeau, Francis Laundry Jr., and Jeffrey S. Laundry initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as New York State common law claims, against the Village of Deposit, its Police Chief Jon Bowie, and Village Justice Peter McDade. The lawsuit arose from an incident in May 1997 involving alleged unlawful arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several causes of action. The court denied summary judgment for claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution against Chief Bowie, and a state law assault and battery claim against Justice McDade. However, it granted summary judgment dismissing claims against the Village related to an alleged pattern of unconstitutional conduct and claims against Justice McDade based on judicial immunity. Additionally, all claims against the New York State Troopers, the Village Police Department, and punitive damages against the Village were dismissed. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining federal and state law claims.

Civil RightsSection 1983False ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionMunicipal LiabilityJudicial ImmunityExcessive ForceSummary JudgmentConstitutional Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2004

Foote v. Lyonsdale Energy Limited Partnership

Glenn A. Foote, Jr., an employee, sustained injuries when a wood chip stacker collapsed at the Lyonsdale Cogeneration Facility. He and his wife filed a lawsuit alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 against the facility owners (Lyonsdale Energy Limited Partnership and Moose River Energy, Inc.), the stacker designer (American Bin & Conveyor), and the procurer (Wolf & Associates). The Supreme Court partially granted summary judgment to Lyonsdale and Wolf, dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against Lyonsdale and the negligence claim against Wolf. On cross-appeals, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable as the injury resulted from the structure's collapse rather than the failure of a safety device. The court also upheld the dismissal of the negligence claim against Wolf due to the absence of a duty to the plaintiff, and found a question of fact existed regarding Lyonsdale's supervisory control, thus denying summary judgment to Lyonsdale on other claims.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentNegligenceElevated Work SiteScaffold LawWood Chip StackerDesign DefectSupervisory ControlContractual Obligation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership

Jose Verdugo, a food service deliveryman, was injured in December 2003 and received workers' compensation benefits. He also initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) later determined that Verdugo's disability ended on January 24, 2006, leading to the termination of his benefits. Subsequently, the defendants in the personal injury action sought to preclude Verdugo from relitigating the duration of his disability, arguing collateral estoppel based on the WCB's finding. The court, affirming the WCB's decision, reversed the Appellate Division's order, granting the defendants' motion to preclude further litigation on disability beyond the WCB's determined date, finding the issue was fully and fairly litigated.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsPersonal Injury ActionCollateral EstoppelAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation BoardDisability DurationMedical TreatmentLost EarningsMedical ExpensesGuardianship Proceeding
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nadler v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the disclosure of a redacted joint venture agreement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed American Savings Bank (ASB), withheld information related to ASB's subsidiary, Amore Holdings, Inc., citing FOIA Exemption Four for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The court, applying the National Parks test, determined that public disclosure would significantly impair the FDIC’s ability to maximize profits from its receivership assets and cause substantial competitive harm to Amore. Consequently, the court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.

FOIAExemption FourCommercial InformationConfidentialityFDIC ReceivershipSummary JudgmentGovernment AgencyReal Estate DevelopmentFreedom of Information Act
References
12
Case No. ADJ593283 (AHM 0117827) ADJ1747148 (AHM 0117828) ADJ196184 (AHM 0117826)
Regular
Aug 01, 2011

DEBORAH ARRIOLA-LARA vs. NORDSTROMS; Permissibly Self-Insured

The Appeals Board denied Nordstrom's Petition for Removal seeking to overturn an order allowing applicant's supplemental deposition at her attorney's office. The Board found the petition lacked merit. However, the Board sua sponte granted removal on the limited issue of sanctions against Nordstrom's counsel. This action stems from counsel's inclusion of numerous extraneous and previously filed documents in their 114-page petition, constituting a violation of procedural rules and potentially a frivolous tactic warranting sanctions.

Petition for RemovalSupplemental DepositionDue Process ViolationCode of Civil Procedure Section 2025.250Good CauseWCAB Rule 10842(c)Labor Code Section 5813Bad-Faith ActionsFrivolous TacticsUnnecessary Delay
References
4
Case No. ADJ3763910 (STK 0195200) ADJ6626980
Regular
Feb 06, 2015

JOHN ALARCON vs. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC

This case involves an applicant seeking to modify deposition and Qualified Medical Evaluation (QME) orders due to alleged severe medical conditions. While the applicant agrees to the deposition and QME, they claim their health prevents travel and request these be held at their home. The Appeals Board granted the Petition for Removal, finding the medical record requires further development regarding the alleged travel limitations. The orders for deposition and QME are amended to defer the time and place, returning the matter to the trial level for proceedings on accommodation issues.

Petition for RemovalOrder Compelling DepositionQualified Medical Evaluation (QME)Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)Industrial InjuriesPolymyositisTreating PhysicianMedical ReportTravel LimitationsAccommodation
References
2
Case No. ADJ2203036 (SAC 0198508) ADJ4156707 (SAC 0224575)
Regular
Mar 03, 2016

SANDI ODA vs. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case concerns a dispute over the deposition of Dr. Michael Kasman, who began an evaluation of the applicant but never completed it. The applicant sought to quash the deposition notice, citing due process, privacy, attorney work product, and the fact that Dr. Kasman was withdrawn as their expert. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal solely to limit the scope of the deposition. The Board amended the discovery order to clarify that Dr. Kasman can only be deposed as a percipient witness regarding his attempted examination, not as a medical expert.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalInterim Discovery OrderMandatory Settlement ConferenceMotion to QuashDepositionQualified Medical EvaluatorAttorney Work Product PrivilegePercipient WitnessCumulative Injury
References
0
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02305 [216 AD3d 630]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2023

Lochan v. H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc.

Ashram Lochan sued H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc., 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, and Hassan Haghanegi for personal injuries sustained from falling off an unsecured ladder while painting, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company and, in effect, searched the record to award summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, denying the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the award of summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, finding it improperly searched the record. However, it affirmed the grant of summary judgment against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, concluding the plaintiff established a prima facie case and defendants failed to raise a triable issue. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, ruling they failed to establish the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, a recalcitrant worker, or a volunteer.

Ladder AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240(1)Sole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseUnsecured LadderConstruction Site SafetyWorker Fall
References
18
Case No. ADJ7621876
Regular
Jan 05, 2012

DAVID ESPINOZA RODRIGUEZ vs. WEST COAST PAINTING, INC., CNA CLAIMS SERVICES

This case concerns defendant West Coast Painting's petition to remove an order quashing their Notice of Deposition for applicant David Espinoza Rodriguez. The defendant argued the quashing occurred in a non-noticed walk-through and asserted new circumstances, including potential back surgery and treatment outside the MPN. However, the Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for a subsequent deposition and that no irreparable harm would result from denying it. The denial is consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.610, which generally limits parties to one deposition per deponent without good cause shown.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQuashed DepositionSubsequent DepositionGood CauseSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJ ReportMedical Provider NetworkBack Surgery
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,494 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