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

People v. Weitz

The defendant, Michael Weitz, moved for early termination of his 10-year probation sentence, citing rehabilitation. A hearing was held on May 10, 2012, where Rabbi Efraim Salzman testified on Weitz's behalf, and Weitz also testified. The court reviewed his history, including prior convictions for sexual abuse and unlawful imprisonment in Sullivan County (2002), and attempted sexual abuse in New York County (2004), which led to the current probation. Weitz presented evidence of religious observance and participation in a relapse prevention program, but failed to provide expert testimony on his rehabilitation or demonstrate full acceptance of responsibility. The court found that Weitz had not diligently complied with probation terms and that his claims of rehabilitation and reasons for early termination (travel, marriage) were unconvincing. Consequently, the motion for early termination of probation was denied.

Probation TerminationSex OffenderRehabilitation AssessmentCriminal Procedure Law 410.90Penal LawCorrection LawWitness CredibilityPsychiatric EvaluationRisk AssessmentSentencing Discretion
References
10
Case No. ADJ974365 (SAL 0098936)
Regular
Nov 23, 2011

SALVADOR ARANDA vs. EARLY CHILDHOOD.COM, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Administered By SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Salvador Aranda's workers' compensation claim against Early Childhood.com and its insurer, Legion Insurance Company, which is in liquidation and administered by the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is dismissing Aranda's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal is primarily due to the petition being untimely, unverified, and lacking proper service on the defendant.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardUntimely petitionUnverified petitionFailure to serve defendantDismissalLegion Insurance CompanyLiquidationCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationSedgwick Claims Management Services
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Schlumberger Ltd.

This case involves an action removed from state court, where plaintiffs William Martinez, Frank Ditta, and Lafayette Kirksey sued Schlumberger Limited and Schlumberger Technology Corporation. Plaintiffs' state-law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligence, and gross negligence, stemming from alleged misrepresentations about future early retirement benefits, were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Plaintiffs contended that Schlumberger falsely denied considering enhanced early retirement packages, leading them to retire before a new Voluntary Early Retirement Plan (VERP) was announced. The court construed the action as a breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA and adopted a version of the 'serious consideration' test to determine when an employer's duty to disclose plan changes arises. Finding that the VERP was not under 'serious consideration' until after the plaintiffs' retirement, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims, including the breach of fiduciary duty and an unresolved claim for interest on profit sharing plans.

ERISAFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentEarly Retirement PlanMisrepresentationEmployee BenefitsSerious Consideration TestPreemptionFraudNegligence
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 1997

In re the Claim of Slezak

A claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The claimant had voluntarily accepted an early retirement incentive package after 32 years of employment, despite continuing work being available. The Board ruled that leaving employment for an early retirement package when work is available does not constitute good cause for leaving employment, aligning with established precedent. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's decision and affirmed it.

unemployment insurancevoluntary separationgood causeearly retirementbenefits disqualificationsubstantial evidenceappeal decisionemployment lawlabor law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 1995

In re the Claim of Rosinke

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled he was disqualified from receiving benefits due to voluntarily leaving his employment without good cause. The claimant, a stock clerk for 20 years, opted for early retirement because a commuting co-worker also retired. The Board denied benefits, a decision the appellate court affirmed. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's finding, as the claimant voluntarily chose early retirement and did not seriously pursue public transportation alternatives before resigning.

unemployment insurance benefitsvoluntary departureearly retirementgood causesubstantial evidencestock clerkcommuteappealaffirmed
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2011

In re Claim of Williams

Claimant, a maintenance worker, was disqualified from unemployment insurance benefits after voluntarily leaving his employment early during a snowstorm without authorization. Despite being warned by his supervisor that leaving would constitute job abandonment, he departed and was subsequently terminated. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his benefits application, finding he lacked good cause for leaving. On appeal, the decision was affirmed, with the court noting that unauthorized early departure in disregard of a supervisor's directive can be construed as job abandonment. The conflicting testimony presented a credibility issue, which the Board was entitled to resolve.

Unemployment BenefitsVoluntary DepartureGood CauseJob AbandonmentSupervisory DirectiveCredibility IssueAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceSnowstormTermination
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacobson v. Weinberger

Harry Jacobson sought judicial review of a final administrative decision by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare concerning the calculation of his retirement insurance benefits. Jacobson contended his benefits were incorrectly determined, specifically challenging the Secretary's recomputation method and the reduction applied due to his election of early benefits. The court, after reviewing the administrative record and applicable law, concluded that the Secretary's computation was correct, explaining the statutory basis for benefit calculation, recomputation, and early benefit reductions. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's cross-motion was denied.

Social Security ActRetirement Insurance BenefitsBenefit RecomputationEarly Benefit ReductionSummary JudgmentAdministrative Decision ReviewAverage Monthly WagePrimary Insurance AmountExcess Earnings
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 1995

Wight v. Wight

This case involves an appeal regarding a plaintiff's motion to terminate his maintenance obligation to the defendant. The plaintiff sought termination due to early retirement, but the Supreme Court denied his motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, noting that the plaintiff's financial situation remained substantially more favorable than the defendant's, despite his retirement. The court found that the plaintiff's asserted change in circumstances was largely self-imposed through his early retirement, disinclination to seek new employment, and transfer of significant assets to his second wife. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances to warrant a reduction in spousal maintenance.

MaintenanceAlimonyDivorceFinancial StatusEarly RetirementChange in CircumstancesSpousal SupportEquitable DistributionAppellate CourtAffirmation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1990

Ashker v. International Business Machines Corp.

Plaintiff, a 59-year-old executive secretary, sued her employer (defendant) for age and perceived disability discrimination after allegedly being forced into early retirement. Despite a history of excellent performance reviews, she was deemed dangerous and required psychological evaluation, which concluded she was fit to return to work. Upon attempting to resume her position, she was denied entry and subsequently offered new roles or early retirement, leading her to choose the latter under duress. The defendant moved to dismiss her claims for lack of a prima facie case. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and this appellate court affirmed that decision, finding sufficient grounds for both discrimination claims to proceed.

Age DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationWrongful TerminationForced RetirementHuman Rights LawPrima Facie CaseExecutive SecretaryPsychological EvaluationMotion to DismissAppellate Decision
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1998

In re the Claim of Diallo

Claimant, a hotel desk clerk, was discharged for repeatedly leaving work early without securing proper coverage and for falsifying his time sheet. He had prior permission to leave early only if a co-worker covered his shift, a condition he failed to consistently meet. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that his termination was due to misconduct, thereby disqualifying him from unemployment insurance benefits. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that unauthorized departures and falsified time sheets constitute disqualifying misconduct, especially after warnings. The court also upheld the Board's authority to resolve credibility disputes, despite the claimant's differing account of events.

MisconductUnemployment Insurance BenefitsEmployment TerminationFalsifying Time SheetUnauthorized AbsenceAppeal Board DecisionCredibility IssuesJudicial ReviewHotel Desk Clerk
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 202 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