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. ADJ7816135
Regular
May 07, 2012

BRYAN FLICKER vs. COUNTY OF BUTTE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the administrative law judge's (WCJ) finding of industrial injury for a correctional lieutenant. The WCJ had applied Labor Code section 3213.3, which presumes lower back impairments in peace officers required to wear duty belts. The Board found insufficient evidence that the applicant was required to wear a duty belt as a condition of employment as a peace officer, which is a prerequisite for the presumption's application. Therefore, the Board rescinded the award and returned the case for a determination of industrial injury without reference to the duty belt presumption, allowing for further record development.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBryan FlickerCounty of ButteADJ7816135Labor Code section 3213.3correctional lieutenantcumulative injurylow back impairmentpeace officerduty belt presumption
References
0
Case No. ADJ2596572 (MON 0357137)
Regular
May 29, 2018

CRISTINA CORIA vs. CITY OF SANTA MONICA

This case involves a police officer's claim for industrial injury, specifically to her low back. The applicant contends the WCJ erred by not applying the Labor Code section 3213.2 "duty belt presumption" and improperly apportioning cervical spine disability. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision, finding the independent medical evaluator's opinions did not properly rebut the presumption. The case is returned to the trial level for a determination on the applicability of the duty belt presumption and whether the injury manifested within the statutory timeframe. Issues regarding apportionment are preserved for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPolice OfficerCumulative InjuryBilateral Carpal Tunnel SyndromeBilateral Cubital Tunnel SyndromePermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 3213.2Duty Belt Presumption
References
0
Case No. SAL 0084267, SAL 0084268, SAL 0090529
Regular
Jan 04, 2008

LARRY MYERS vs. CITY OF SALINAS

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant City of Salinas sought reconsideration of an award granting the applicant, a police captain, 84% permanent disability and lifelong pension. The defendant argued for apportionment of disability to non-industrial causes, disputing the applicability of the Labor Code section 3213.2 "duty belt" presumption. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the defendant had previously stipulated to the presumption's applicability and that the applicant independently qualified for it based on his employment history and duty belt usage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLarry MyersCity of SalinasFindings Award OrdersWCJindustrial injuriesleft kneelower extremitiesspineleft shoulder
References
2
Case No. ADJ9312112
Regular
Apr 17, 2017

CUONG PHAN vs. CITY OF SANTA CLARA

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant City of Santa Clara's petition for reconsideration. The Board upheld a prior finding that applicant Cuong Phan sustained industrial injuries to his lower back, resulting in 29% permanent disability. The key issue was the application of the "duty belt presumption" under Labor Code section 3213.2, which presumes lower back impairments in long-term peace officers required to wear duty belts arise from employment. The Board found the presumption applicable and not rebutted, deeming it a legislative intent to protect officers with these specific conditions.

Duty belt presumptionLabor Code section 3213.2police officerlower back impairmentpeace officerpermanent disabilityjoint findings and awardpetition for reconsiderationBenson apportionmentLabor Code section 4663(e)
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Belt Painting Corp. v. TIG Insurance

This case addresses whether an 'absolute pollution exclusion' in an insurance policy applies to indoor dissemination of paint or paint solvent fumes. Belt Painting Corp., the plaintiff, was sued by Joseph and Maria Cinquemani for injuries sustained from inhaling fumes during Belt's work. TIG Insurance Company, the defendant and Belt's insurer, denied coverage based on the pollution exclusion. The Supreme Court initially sided with TIG, but the Appellate Division reversed the decision. The Appellate Division held that the exclusion does not apply to cases where the 'environment,' as commonly understood, is unaffected by what could realistically be defined as 'pollution,' thus mandating TIG to defend and indemnify Belt.

Insurance LawPollution ExclusionAbsolute Pollution ExclusionContract InterpretationCommercial General Liability PolicyIndemnificationDeclaratory JudgmentIndoor Air ContaminationToxic FumesPaint Solvent
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waite v. American Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiff Basil Waite, a baggage handler for AMR Services Corporation (an independent contractor for American Airlines), suffered a personal injury to his arm on November 18, 1995, when it got caught in a conveyor belt at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He filed a personal injury action against American Airlines, Inc., alleging negligence and breach of duty to maintain a safe premises. American Airlines moved for summary judgment. The court considered theories of recovery including assumed specific duty, common law/statutory duty to maintain safe premises, common law/statutory duty to control work, and vicarious liability for inherently dangerous work. The court found that American Airlines did not breach any duties and the activity was not inherently dangerous. Therefore, American's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentIndependent Contractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityNegligenceWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityBaggage Handling AccidentFederal Civil ProcedureNew York Labor LawVicarious Liability
References
26
Case No. ADJ1237800 (AHM0151777)
Regular
Jan 22, 2016

KENNETH ROSENBERG vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL DISABILITY AND RETIREMENT, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify clerical errors in a previous award. The Board amended the award to reflect that the defendant, California Highway Patrol, is "legally uninsured" and affirmed the application of the "duty belt" presumption (Labor Code section 3213.2). The Board also affirmed the finding of $43\%$ permanent disability, temporary disability, and the denial of apportionment, finding that the defendant waived any due process claims regarding temporary disability by not objecting at trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Highway PatrolLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermissibly Self-InsuredLow Back InjuryLeft Shoulder Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Veera v. Ambac Plan Administrative Order Committee

This class action was initiated by a former employee of Ambac Financial Group, Inc. against the company's Plan Investment Committee, Plan Administrative Committee, Compensation Committee, and individual defendant Leonard. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by continuing to offer Ambac stock as an investment option in the employer-sponsored Savings Incentive Plan. This was deemed imprudent given their alleged knowledge of Ambac's significant financial decline during the Class Period of October 2006 to July 2008. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing they had no fiduciary obligation to remove or diversify the stock and were protected by a presumption of prudence for employer stock investments. The court denied the motion, concluding that ERISA's fiduciary duties override contradictory plan documents. It also found that the plaintiff's detailed factual allegations were sufficient to potentially overcome the presumption of prudence, allowing the case to proceed. The ruling affirmed that fiduciaries cannot blindly adhere to plan terms if those terms are inconsistent with ERISA's prudence mandates.

ERISAFiduciary DutyClass ActionMotion to DismissEmployer StockSavings Incentive PlanPrudence StandardDiversification ExemptionMoench PresumptionFinancial Decline
References
19
Case No. 08 Civ. 7890, 09 Civ. 5450
Regular Panel Decision

Gearren v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

The case involves two consolidated class actions by current and former employees of McGraw-Hill against the company and its fiduciaries, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants continued to offer McGraw-Hill stock as an investment option in retirement plans despite knowing its value was likely to decline due to improperly high credit ratings by Standard & Poor's. They also alleged a failure to disclose material information. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim. The court applied a "presumption of prudence" to the fiduciaries' decisions regarding the stock fund and found that a 64% drop in share price was insufficient to rebut this presumption. Furthermore, the court ruled that defendants had no affirmative duty under ERISA to disclose financial information about the company's stock to plan participants beyond what was incorporated by reference in SEC filings, as these were not made in an ERISA fiduciary capacity concerning plan benefits. Consequently, claims of secondary liability also failed.

ERISAFiduciary DutyEmployee Stock Ownership PlanEIAPStock FundMotion to DismissClass ActionInvestment RiskDisclosureSecurities Law
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,496 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