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. ADJ10434987
Regular
Jan 06, 2023

EZRA CENTENO vs. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION, CORVEL CORPORATION

This case involves an applicant claiming psychological injury, neck pain, headaches, and sleep disorder due to events at Harbor Freight Tools. The defendant argues the injury was substantially caused by lawful, non-discriminatory, good faith personnel actions, which would bar compensation under Labor Code section 3208.3(h). The Appeals Board rescinded the prior award, finding the trial judge used too narrow a standard for "good faith personnel actions" and did not adequately analyze them under the required multi-level approach. The case is returned for further proceedings to properly develop the medical record and reassess the personnel action defense.

Psychiatric injuryGood faith personnel actionLabor Code section 3208.3(h)Substantial causePredominant causeTemporomandibular joint disorderAOE/COEWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardReconsideration
References
6
Case No. ADJ3435222
Regular
Sep 08, 2015

Keith Whitmore vs. Metropolitan State Hospital

This case concerns applicant Keith Whitmore's claim for a psychiatric injury allegedly caused by cumulative trauma and personnel actions at Metropolitan State Hospital. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior finding that barred his claim under Labor Code section 3208.3(h), which exempts injuries caused by lawful, good faith personnel actions. The WCAB found that the defendant hospital failed to meet its burden of proving its personnel actions were lawful, non-discriminatory, and in good faith, overturning the prior decision. Therefore, the WCAB found that Whitmore sustained an industrial injury to his psychological system, though his claims for neurological and central nervous system injuries were not disturbed.

Labor Code section 3208.3(h)good faith personnel actionscumulative trauma injurypsychiatric injurypsychiatric technicianMetropolitan State HospitalPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorDepressive Disorder Not Otherwise Specifiedoccupational group number 311Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
5
Case No. Action No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Felicciardi v. Town of Brookhaven

Maureen Felicciardi was injured after slipping and falling on a negligently waxed floor in a federal building. She commenced two actions for damages, Action No. 1 in Suffolk County and Action No. 2 in New York County, naming Nelson Maintenance Services, Inc. as a defendant. Nelson moved for summary judgment in Action No. 1 due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a conditional order of preclusion. The Supreme Court denied Nelson's motion and excused the plaintiffs' default. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment was reversed. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in excusing the plaintiffs' lengthy and inadequately explained delay in complying with the discovery order, especially given the potential prejudice to Nelson in proving negligence years after the incident. Consequently, the complaint in Action No. 1 was dismissed against Nelson.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsOrder of PreclusionExcusable DefaultLaw Office FailureAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNegligence
References
5
Case No. ADJ9946508
Regular
Nov 03, 2017

DOUGLAS JACKSON vs. COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, CORVEL CORPORATION

This case involves a civil engineer claiming industrial psychiatric injury due to workplace stressors. The administrative law judge initially found the applicant did not sustain industrial psychiatric injury, determining the employer's actions were lawful, non-discriminatory, and good-faith personnel actions. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the initial decision lacked a sufficient *Rolda* analysis. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings to fully address the employer's good-faith personnel action defense and its substantial contribution to the claimed injury.

WCABindustrial injurypsychepredominant causelawful personnel actionsnondiscriminatorygood faithPQMEbipolar II disordercumulative trauma
References
0
Case No. ADJ8358585
Regular
Mar 21, 2016

ELAINE HUERTA vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant, Elaine Huerta, claimed industrial injury to her psyche. The defendant, County of San Bernardino, sought reconsideration of a prior award finding the psychiatric injury compensable and rejecting the good faith personnel action defense. The Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the judge's finding that the applicant's psychiatric injury was not substantially caused by lawful, non-discriminatory, good faith personnel actions. The Board found the applicant's injury resulted from the employer's deficient personnel management, including failure to address co-worker harassment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPsychiatric injuryGood faith personnel actionLabor Code section 3208.3Predominant causeSubstantial causeRolda v. Pitney BowesInc.Multilevel analysisIndustrial injury
References
2
Case No. ADJ838713
Regular
Apr 29, 2010

CAROL SERNA-TORRES vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, INTERCARE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's argument that the applicant's psychiatric injury may have been caused by good faith personnel actions, which would bar compensation. The Board found the original decision failed to properly analyze whether specific employment events constituted lawful, non-discriminatory, good faith personnel actions. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for the judge to determine if the applicant's claim is barred under Labor Code Section 3208.3(h) by such actions. The Board accepts, for this analysis, that the initial threshold for industrial psychiatric injury causation was met.

Labor Code section 3208.3Rolda v. Pitney Bowespsychiatric injurygood faith personnel actionscumulative traumapredominant causeindustrial causationactual events of employmentPQMEWCJ
References
5
Case No. Action No. 1; Action No. 2
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 1997

Sidor v. Zuhoski

This case involves appeals from an order concerning two related actions: one for personal injuries (Action No. 1) and another for wrongful death (Action No. 2). Joseph and Gregory Zuhoski appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the complaint in Action No. 1. Separately, Colin Van Tuyl, as Executor of the Estate of Janet A. Van Tuyl, and Brianna and Colin Van Tuyl, individually, appealed both the denial of the Zuhoskis' motion and the granting of Martin Sidor & Sons, Inc.'s motion to amend its answer in Action No. 2. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, noting the trial court's sound discretion in granting leave to amend pleadings, particularly when the failure to deny allegations was an inadvertent mistake. Furthermore, the court found an issue of fact regarding Gregory Zuhoski's employment status at the time of the accident, which justified the denial of the Zuhoskis' motion for summary judgment.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentAppealPleading AmendmentDiscretion of Trial CourtWorkers' Compensation LawScope of EmploymentAppellate DivisionSuffolk County Litigation
References
12
Case No. Action No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Koren v. Zazo

David Koren, plaintiff in Action No. 2, sued Vivaldi, Inc. following a motor vehicle accident, alleging John Zazo, the driver, was a Vivaldi employee acting within the scope of his employment. Vivaldi moved for summary judgment, asserting Zazo was an independent contractor. Vivaldi provided evidence of Zazo's compensation by commission, self-sourced clients, lack of expenses or benefits, and 1099 tax form issuance, consistent with independent contractor status. The court found this evidence sufficient to establish Zazo as an independent contractor, thereby absolving Vivaldi of liability for his negligent acts. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order denying summary judgment to Vivaldi and third-party defendant Ford Motor Credit Company was reversed, leading to the dismissal of both the complaint and third-party complaint in Action No. 2.

Independent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipSummary JudgmentMotor Vehicle AccidentVicarious LiabilityNegligencePersonal InjuryAppellate DivisionNew York Law1099 Tax Form
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graziano v. Medford Plaza Associates, Ltd.

Guy Graziano, an employee of Coca-Cola Company, sustained personal injuries after falling in a parking lot and received workers' compensation benefits. His insurance carrier initiated Action No. 2, as assignee, against prior property owners and managing agents after notifying Graziano of the assignment of his claim if he failed to sue within 30 days. Separately, Guy and Maureen Graziano commenced Action No. 1 against prior owners and the current owner, 210 West 29th Street Corp. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Grazianos' action, ruling their claims were assigned to the carrier. On appeal, the order was modified: the dismissal of Action No. 1 was denied, and both actions were consolidated. The appellate court concluded that the carrier had waived its rights as an assignee against 210 West 29th Street Corp. by failing to pursue a claim against them.

Workers' Compensation LawAssignment of ClaimsPersonal InjuryProperty Owner LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWaiver of RightsConsolidation of ActionsAppellate ReviewInsurance SubrogationNew York Law
References
5
Case No. ADJ7348149
Regular
Mar 18, 2019

CELINE ROUYA vs. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS, CORVEL CORPORATION

The applicant appeals the WCJ's decision denying injury to psyche and other body parts, arguing the WCJ erred by not addressing her harassment claim and finding the personnel actions were in good faith. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study the issues, noting discrepancies in witness testimony and insufficient medical opinions on causation. The case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to develop the record, including obtaining clarified medical opinions on causation and further testimony. The dissenting commissioner would affirm the WCJ's decision, finding the personnel actions were legal and non-discriminatory, and applicant's harassment claims were not supported by objective evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCeline RouyaSave Mart SupermarketsCorvel CorporationADJ7348149ReconsiderationPsychiatric InjuryPharmacy TechnicianHarassmentNational Origin
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 8,484 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