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. ADJ8222803
Regular
Jul 30, 2018

TERRY LASKO vs. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS; AIG, Cast & Crew Entertainment Services

This case involves a petition for contribution where Entertainment Partners seeks reimbursement from Cast & Crew for benefits paid to an applicant. The original arbitrator awarded Entertainment Partners $95,565.17 but denied Cast & Crew liability for future medical care. Entertainment Partners contends the arbitrator erred by arbitrarily allocating $7,500 to an unpled specific injury and by denying them contribution for temporary disability. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original award, and remanded the case for further proceedings due to the arbitrator exceeding his authority by making an unsubstantiated allocation.

Labor Code Section 5500.5ContributionPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardCompromise and ReleaseCumulative TraumaFuture Medical CareArbitrator AuthorityTemporary DisabilitySpecific Injury
References
5
Case No. ADJ6959869
Regular
Nov 12, 2013

DAVID BODIN vs. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, CHARTIS CLAIMS INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order that dismissed "Entertainment Partners" as a party defendant with prejudice. The applicant sought to have the dismissal be without prejudice to allow for potential rejoining of the defendant. The Board agreed with the judge's recommendation to amend the dismissal order. Therefore, Entertainment Partners is dismissed without prejudice, allowing the applicant to potentially rejoin them if further discovery warrants.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Party DefendantsCumulative Trauma InjuryDismissal Without PrejudiceFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeRejoin Defendant
References
3
Case No. 94 Civ. 654 (MBM), 94 Civ. 2978 (MBM)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 1995

Bluebird Partners, LP v. First Fidelity Bank

Bluebird Partners, L.P., a secondary purchaser of equipment trust interests for Continental Airlines, sued indenture trustees and their law firms for alleged violations of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA) and state law. Plaintiff claimed defendants failed to prudently protect certificate holders' interests during Continental's bankruptcy by not acting timely on adequate protection motions. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Bluebird Partners lacked standing as a secondary purchaser because federal TIA claims do not automatically transfer with the security. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that under federal common law, TIA claims do not automatically transfer to subsequent purchasers who were not injured at the time of the alleged wrongdoing, thus denying standing to Bluebird Partners. The court declined to retain jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims.

Trust Indenture ActStandingSecondary PurchaserSecurities LawBankruptcy CodeAutomatic StayAdequate ProtectionFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractNegligence
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NewMarkets Partners LLC v. Oppenheim

This Memorandum & Order addresses motions to dismiss in a case concerning false advertising under the Lanham Act and various state law claims. Plaintiffs, NewMarkets Partners LLC, CAM NewMarkets Partners LP, and Marie-Frances Mathes, allege that Defendants Sal. Oppenheim Jr. & CIE. S.C.A., CAM Private Equity Consulting & Verwaltungs GmbH, and BVT Beratungs-, Verwaltungsund Treuhandgesellsehaft für Internationale Vermorgensanlagen MBH, misused their proprietary investment model and names to market competing German funds. The court granted BVT-B's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It also dismissed the civil conspiracy claim against Oppenheim and CAM, and the unfair competition claim against Oppenheim. However, motions to dismiss the false advertising claim against Oppenheim and CAM, and the unjust enrichment claim against CAM were denied. The tortious interference claim against CAM was denied as moot due to an amended complaint.

Lanham ActFalse AdvertisingPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionUnfair CompetitionCivil ConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentJoint Venture AgreementPrivate Equity FundsExtraterritorial Jurisdiction
References
75
Case No. ADJ4176208 (VNO 0549338)
Regular
Sep 25, 2009

CHRISTOPHER STIEPEKE vs. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, INC., AIG COSTA MESA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Entertainment Partners, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration. The defendant disputed the finding that the applicant's average weekly earnings were sufficient to make them liable for the Employment Development Department's (EDD) lien. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision, clarifying that the judge did not establish a specific average weekly earnings amount but rather determined the minimum necessary for the defendant to cover the EDD lien. Therefore, the defendant's petition was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeAverage Weekly EarningsTemporary Disability IndemnityEmployment Development DepartmentEDD LienIndustrial InjuryRight Elbow
References
0
Case No. ADJ8222803
Regular
Aug 05, 2019

Terry Lasko vs. Entertainment Partners, AIG, Cast & Crew, Zurich North America, Universal Studios, Paramount Pictures

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of an arbitrator's decision regarding contribution between two employers, Entertainment Partners and Cast & Crew. The WCAB modified the award, ordering Cast & Crew to contribute to future medical care for the applicant's left shoulder, finding substantial evidence of industrial injury. However, the WCAB affirmed the arbitrator's denial of Cast & Crew's contribution for temporary disability and future medical care for GERD, constipation, and high blood pressure due to insufficient evidence of industrial causation for those conditions. One commissioner dissented, arguing for Cast & Crew's contribution to future medical care for the internal conditions.

Cumulative TraumaContribution PetitionLabor Code Section 5500.5Compromise and ReleaseFuture Medical CareApportionmentPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidenceNon-Industrial InjuryIndustrial Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 1996

Velez v. Tishman Foley Partners

An ironworker, employed by Diamond International, Inc., was injured when a hoist tower's cross-bracing gave way. The plaintiff sued Universal Builders Supply, Inc. (who built the hoist tower), Tishman Foley Partners (owner/general contractor), and Glassalum International Corporation (a subcontractor). The Supreme Court modified a prior order, granting Universal's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against it. The court denied common-law indemnification for Tishman Foley Partners and Glassalum against Universal, but affirmed Tishman Foley Partners' contractual indemnification claim, noting that an owner's strict statutory liability does not preclude contractual indemnity without a showing of owner negligence.

Construction AccidentHoist TowerLabor LawIndemnificationSummary JudgmentSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral ContractorOwner LiabilityStrict LiabilityCommon-Law Indemnity
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Youngers v. Virtus Investment Partners Inc.

Lead Plaintiffs Mark Youngers, et al., brought a securities class action against Virtus Investment Partners, Inc., and other defendants. The lawsuit alleged misrepresentations concerning the performance history of the AlphaSector investment strategy, specifically that pre-2008 results were based on back-tested, hypothetical data rather than live trading, leading to inflated mutual fund valuations and fees. Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied in part, dismissing Section 10(b) claims against W. Patrick Bradley and the Independent Trustees, Section 20(a) claims against multiple defendants, and Section 12(a)(2) claims against Virtus Partners and George R. Aylward. Additionally, all Section 11, Section 15, and derivative claims were dismissed in their entirety.

Securities fraudClass actionMutual fundsInvestment strategyAlphaSectorBack-tested resultsMisrepresentationOmissionLoss causationScienter
References
91
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00229 [168 AD3d 491]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2019

Sanchez v. 404 Park Partners, LP

Luis Sanchez, a construction worker, was injured after falling through an uncovered floor opening at a work site. He moved for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against the property owner, 404 Park Partners, LP, the general contractor, Sciame Construction, LLC, and subcontractor Cord Contracting Co. Inc., which was granted by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the liability findings against these parties, noting the owner and general contractor's statutory duties and the subcontractor's delegated duty to cover floor openings. Additionally, the court modified the lower court's indemnification rulings. It granted conditional full contractual indemnification to Sciame from United Air Conditioning Corp. II and conditional contractual indemnification to 404 Park and Sciame from Cord, contingent on the extent of their respective negligence, while also preserving factual issues concerning common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Sciame.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilitySafe Place to WorkIndustrial Code ViolationsProximate Cause
References
6
Case No. ADJ4484214, ADJ1095231, ADJ1532047, ADJ7900801
Regular
May 17, 2017

CANA SWARTOUT vs. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, AIG CLAIMS SERVICES, CAST & CREW ENTERTAINMENT, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, CNA CLAIMS PLUS

This case involved multiple employers and insurance carriers for Dana Swartout's various work-related injuries sustained between 2002 and 2007. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) initially issued findings but granted reconsideration to study the issues, including contentions about permanent total disability and statute of limitations. Following settlement conferences, the parties entered into a Compromise and Release agreement, which the WCAB has now approved. The WCAB rescinded its prior order and approved the settlement, finding it adequate and in the applicant's best interest.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardDana SwartoutEntertainment PartnersAmerican Home AssuranceAIG Claims ServicesCast & Crew EntertainmentZurich North AmericaAmerican Casualty CompanyCNA Claims PlusPermanent Total Disability
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 344 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