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. W2013-01817-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2014

Lataynia Jones v. Sharp Electronics Corporation

Plaintiff Lataynia Jones filed an action against Sharp Electronics Corporation alleging retaliation and interference under the Tennessee Disabilities Act (TDA). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Sharp, finding that the TDA does not mandate 'reasonable accommodations' as sought by Jones in the form of extended leave. Jones appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, reiterating that unlike federal law, the TDA does not impose a duty on employers to provide reasonable accommodations, and that Jones's disability prevented her from performing her job duties without additional leave time beyond what was provided by the FMLA and CBA.

Disability DiscriminationTennessee Disability Act (TDA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Summary Judgment AffirmationEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationAppellate Court DecisionShelby County Circuit CourtDepression and Bipolar DisorderCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2005

Canino v. Electronic Technologies Co.

Plaintiff, an electrician employed by Electronic Technologies Company (ETC), sustained injuries after falling from an A-frame ladder while installing security equipment at a facility owned by International Business Machines Corporation (IBM). Plaintiff subsequently initiated legal action against both ETC and IBM, alleging multiple violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment against IBM concerning liability under Labor Law section 240 (1), while the defendants filed a cross-motion requesting the dismissal of the entire complaint. The Supreme Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, leading to these cross-appeals. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, citing unresolved questions of fact regarding the adequacy of the safety device provided and whether the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident, thus preventing summary judgment for either side.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Workplace AccidentLadder SafetySummary Judgment MotionCross AppealsQuestion of FactProximate CauseConstruction Site InjuryEmployer LiabilityPremises Owner Liability
References
7
Case No. 11-02-00123-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2003

Ray Lebron D/B/A Lebron Electronics v. Citicorp Vendor Finance, Inc. F/K/A/ Copelco Capital, Inc.

Ray Lebron d/b/a Lebron Electronics (Lebron) appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for class certification in a dispute with Citicorp Vendor Finance, Inc. (Citicorp) regarding equipment lease agreements. Lebron had filed a counterclaim alleging DTPA and usury claims, and later sought class action certification for unconscionable and usurious contracts. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision under an abuse of discretion standard. Lebron failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the four prerequisites for class certification under Rule 42(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. The court also noted Lebron's delay in seeking certification and failure to conduct discovery. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order denying class certification, finding no abuse of discretion.

Class ActionClass CertificationAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Rules of Civil Procedure 42NumerosityCommonalityTypicalityAdequacy of RepresentationDiscovery Deadline
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goulding v. Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Inc.

Pro se plaintiff Mary Goulding sued the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging she was denied job advancement and later terminated due to her age. She had initially filed a complaint with the EEOC in 1984, which was deferred to the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR), where her claim was denied. After her employment was terminated in 1989, Goulding initiated this federal lawsuit. IEEE moved to dismiss claims arising after November 1984, arguing Goulding had not properly filed new EEOC or state claims for these subsequent events or observed the statutory 60-day conciliation period. The court acknowledged Goulding's failure to meet these procedural requirements but, citing precedent, opted to suspend the prematurely filed claims rather than dismiss them, allowing for proper compliance with the statutory waiting periods.

Age discriminationADEASubject matter jurisdictionEEOCState Division of Human RightsProcedural requirementsConciliation periodMotion to dismissEmployment lawFederal court
References
6
Case No. 2021-06-0442
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2021

Aliyy, Rakin v. LG Electronics

Rakim Aliyy, an employee, sought an expedited hearing to compel LG Electronics, his employer, to authorize further treatment with Dr. Christopher Ashley for a low back injury sustained while working. The employer disputed the work-relatedness of Aliyy's current condition, relying on the opinion of Dr. Christopher Kauffman, who deemed the symptoms as pre-existing and degenerative. The Court denied Aliyy's request, finding he failed to meet the burden of proof to demonstrate his present symptoms arose primarily out of employment. Additionally, the Court referred LG Electronics to the Compliance Program for potential violations related to not providing a proper physician panel and failing to file a notice of denial or controversy.

Workers' Compensation LawExpedited Hearing OrderMedical Benefits DisputeCausation StandardPre-existing Condition AggravationLow Back InjurySpine Specialist OpinionOrthopedic Surgeon EvaluationBurden of Proof in Compensation CasesPhysician Panel Compliance
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1983

Claim of Palumbo v. Transport Masters International, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board initially denied a claim due to late filing and lack of advance compensation payment. A subsequently located disability benefits file was reviewed by the Board in the interest of justice. However, the Board found no evidence within this file to indicate a claim for compensation was filed as required by section 28 of the Workers' Compensation Law. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that only questions of fact were presented. The court concluded that the Board's factual findings were conclusive as they were supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Workers' Compensation BoardClaim Filing DeadlineDisability Benefits FileSubstantial EvidenceQuestions of FactAppellate ReviewTime LimitationAdvance PaymentSection 28Administrative Review
References
1
Case No. ADJ8681153
Regular
Aug 09, 2018

MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ vs. PITMAN FARMS, INC., YORK INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior order dismissing a lien claimant's claim for interpreter fees. The lien claimant had filed a declaration required by Labor Code section 4903.05, but did not electronically file it as required by WCAB Rule 10770.7. The Board found that although the electronic filing was defective, the lien claimant substantially complied by timely filing the declaration on paper. Therefore, the matter was returned to the trial level for the lien claimant to correct the filing and for adjudication of remaining issues.

Labor Code Section 4903.05WCAB Rule 10770.7Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Lien ClaimantDeclaration of LienDismissal by Operation of LawReconsiderationRemovalSubstantial ComplianceJurisdictional Time Limitation
References
4
Case No. ADJ9249111
Regular
Dec 01, 2016

JERMAINE HILL vs. COCA COLA COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Psychological Assessment Services (PAS) regarding a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB dismissed the petition as untimely. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be filed, meaning received by the board, within 25 days of service by mail, with electronic filing deadlines also strictly enforced. In this instance, PAS electronically filed its petition one day after the jurisdictional deadline, rendering it void.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalJurisdictional Time LimitService by MailElectronic FilingWCABWCJLabor Code SectionsCalifornia Code of Regulations
References
4
Case No. ADJ2023756 (SAC 0323234) ADJ2900558 (SAC 0358707)
Regular
Aug 30, 2013

VICTORIA BRESHEARS vs. THE KROGER COMPANY DBA RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the employer's petition for reconsideration. The petition was untimely because it was filed electronically after 5:00 p.m. on the deadline. The Board held that electronic filings received after 5:00 p.m. are deemed filed on the next business day, rendering the petition outside the jurisdictional timeframe. Therefore, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition on its merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardFindings and OrderElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMS Batch IDTimely FilingJurisdictionalLabor CodeCode of Civil Procedure
References
6
Case No. ADJ7605385
Regular
Feb 25, 2014

SANDRA GONZALEZ vs. JIB HOLDINGS, LLC, dba JACK IN THE BOX, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, *Sandra Gonzalez v. JIB Holdings, LLC*, concerns a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed as untimely. The Board found the petition was filed after the jurisdictional 25-day deadline, regardless of whether it was mailed or electronically filed. Even considering the extended deadline for mail service and the rules for electronic filing on non-business days, the petition was still late. Therefore, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictionProof of ServiceWCAB Business DayElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSLegal DeadlineMail ServiceAdministrative Law Judge
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 12,829 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