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. ADJ-4279077 (SDO 0317244)
Regular
Jun 09, 2016

TINA BARONI vs. CITY OF OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Decision After Removal ordering the striking of three sets of documents from the EAMS record. These documents pertained to San Diego Superior Court Case Number 37-2016-00006537-CU-IC-CTL and were submitted without objection. The WCAB previously issued a Notice of Intention to Strike these documents, stating they would be removed unless good cause to the contrary was shown. No objections were received from the parties or the identified attorneys.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalStriking DocumentsEAMS recordCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationReliance National Indemnity CompanyLiquidationSan Diego Superior CourtObjectionGood Cause
References
1
Case No. ADJ4279077 (SDO 0317244)
Regular
May 05, 2018

TINA BARONI vs. CITY OF OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has removed this case for the stated intention to strike documents filed by attorney Adrienne D. Cohen, who is not of record. These documents, which include notices related to a San Diego Superior Court case and a petition for writ of prohibition, are deemed irrelevant and improperly filed. The WCAB asserts that California Superior Courts lack jurisdiction over the WCAB and that CIGA failed to utilize proper procedural remedies. The WCAB will strike the documents unless good cause is shown to the contrary within ten days.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalStriking DocumentsEAMS RecordCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationReliance National Indemnity CompanyCity of OceansideAdrienne D. CohenNotice of Related CaseWrit of Prohibition
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Engstrum & Nourse-Stolte v. E.C. Ernst, Inc. (In re E.C. Ernst, Inc.)

E.C. Ernst, Inc. (Ernst), a debtor-in-possession in a Chapter XI bankruptcy proceeding, entered into a subcontract with Engstrom & Nourse-Stolte (ENS) for electrical work. After Ernst filed for bankruptcy, a Supplemental Agreement allowed Ernst to continue the project. ENS later filed a Proof of Claim for expenses, which Ernst moved to expunge or allow only as a general unsecured claim. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment regarding the priority of ENS's claim and the interpretation of their agreements. Additionally, Ernst sought to expunge ENS's claim for failure to produce documents. The court denied both motions for summary judgment, citing disputes over the intent behind the Supplemental Agreement and potential breach of contract, and directed ENS to comply with document production.

Bankruptcy ActChapter XI ReorganizationExecutory ContractsSummary JudgmentDebtor-in-PossessionSubcontract AgreementProof of ClaimPriority ClaimContract InterpretationDocument Production
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Castler v. National Grid

Claimant sustained a low back injury in 2006, receiving workers' compensation benefits. In 2013, chiropractor Douglas Van Vorst treated him for two exacerbations after incidents involving shoveling snow and lifting a kayak. The employer's carrier disputed the medical bills, arguing the treatments did not comply with Workers’ Compensation Board Medical Treatment Guidelines (MTG). A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially ruled in favor of the medical provider, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding insufficient documentation for the exacerbation. On appeal, the court examined the documentation and found that Van Vorst adequately detailed how the exacerbations occurred, objective changes from baseline, expected treatments, and claimant's response, satisfying the MTG requirements. The court concluded that the Board’s finding lacked substantial evidence and therefore reversed the Board's decision, remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Medical Treatment GuidelinesExacerbation of InjuryLow Back InjuryChiropractic TreatmentObjective Functional ImprovementVariance Request12 NYCRR 324.212 NYCRR 324.3Substantial EvidenceRemittal
References
5
Case No. ADJ7790883
Regular
Nov 01, 2012

MACARIO JAIMES vs. FS PRECISION TECH, TRAVELERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, PACIFIC COMPENSATION, HOME ASSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to obtain a hearing transcript and allow the defendant, Travelers Insurance, to submit correspondence. This correspondence, including a representation letter from applicant's attorney, is relevant to the presumed compensability of the applicant's industrial injury claim under Labor Code section 5402. The Board now intends to admit these documents into evidence unless a written objection with good cause is filed within 10 days. All future communications regarding this case must be submitted in writing to the Board's Commissioners.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMacario JaimesFS Precision TechTravelersState Compensation Insurance FundPacific CompensationHome AssuranceChartisLabor Code section 5402presumption of compensability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2006

Robles v. City of New York

Plaintiff was allegedly injured after falling on a snowy and icy curb cut ramp in Manhattan. The defendants, the City of New York, were unable to locate Sanitation Department records that would indicate whether City workers were involved in snow removal in the specific area. Plaintiff argued these missing records were crucial to establish that City workers could have observed and remedied the dangerous condition. Defendants countered that they properly prioritize snow removal operations, making any observations by City employees irrelevant as they would not have been able to abandon assigned tasks. The court recognized the municipality's need to establish snow removal priorities. The Supreme Court's order imposing a sanction of a missing documents charge on defendants was unanimously reversed on appeal, and the sanction was vacated.

Municipal LiabilitySnow RemovalIcy ConditionsNegligence ClaimsDiscovery SanctionsMissing DocumentsPrioritization of Public ServicesAppellate ReviewNew York Supreme CourtCurb Cut Ramp
References
2
Case No. ADJ3953602 (SRO 0260827) ADJ2646453 (SRO 0133845)
Regular
Nov 14, 2012

ROBERTO HERNANDEZ vs. MILL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) seeks reconsideration of an award finding the applicant totally permanently disabled due to industrial injuries sustained in 2004. The WCJ found the combined injuries greater than 70% and the second injury itself greater than 35%, entitling the applicant to SIBTF benefits. SIBTF argues the applicant's disability is solely due to the subsequent injury, thus disqualifying them from SIBTF benefits. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the admissibility of two vocational reports and deposition transcripts, Exhibits M and N, which were previously marked for identification only. The Board intends to receive these documents into evidence unless timely objections are filed.

SIBTFPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityIndustrial InjuryVocational Rehabilitation EvaluationDiminished Future Earning CapacityDeposition TranscriptExhibits M and NWCJ Report
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Southern & Eastern District Asbestos Litigation

This document addresses several in limine motions concerning the admissibility of various documents in an asbestos action against defendants Eagle-Picher and Owens-Corning Fiberglas. The plaintiff sought to introduce these documents to demonstrate that the defendants failed to heed warnings about asbestos hazards, thereby warranting punitive damages. The court granted Eagle-Picher's motion to exclude the Bureau of Mines documents, citing a lack of foreseeability regarding end-user danger in 1932. However, it denied Eagle-Picher's motions to exclude the Spencer Memorandum (and related Bockstahler testimony), the Aber Report, and the Harrington Letter, finding sufficient indication that these documents conveyed warnings to authorized personnel. The court also granted Owens-Corning Fiberglas' motion to exclude the Saranac Lake Study documents due to insufficient evidence of their receipt by the defendant.

Asbestos LitigationIn Limine MotionsEvidence AdmissibilityPunitive DamagesCorporate KnowledgeAttorney-Client PrivilegeFraud on the CourtOccupational HazardsWarning DocumentsExpert Testimony
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Coello

Stefan Coello, who previously pled guilty to selling counterfeit social security and alien registration cards, was found in possession of counterfeit laminates resembling INS I-688 Temporary Resident cards. The Government moved for a pre-sentence ruling to classify these laminates as "identification documents" under 18 U.S.C. § 1028. The Court, presided over by District Judge BATTS, ruled that while the laminates themselves are not complete identification documents, their possession constitutes an attempt to possess false identification documents, possession of document-making implements, and an "attempt to produce identification documents". Therefore, the Government's motion was granted in part and denied in part.

Counterfeit DocumentsIdentity Theft18 U.S.C. § 1028Document-Making ImplementAttempted PossessionAttempted ProductionImmigration DocumentsINSFederal CrimeSentencing Guidelines
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2006

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. National Marine Fisheries Service

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit against the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). NRDC sought documents concerning the environmental impacts of military sonar and a mass stranding of whales in North Carolina. The defendants invoked the deliberative process privilege for certain withheld documents, specifically the 'April Document' and 'April Email.' The Court conducted an in camera review of the documents. The Court determined that much of the withheld material in the April Document consisted of purely factual information, primarily necropsy observations, which are not protected by the deliberative process privilege. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was partially granted, compelling the defendants to disclose the factual information.

FOIADeliberative Process PrivilegeSummary JudgmentMarine Mammal Protection ActWhale StrandingGovernment TransparencyInformation DisclosureAdministrative LawFederal CourtAnimal Protection
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 927 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