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. Motion sequence Nos. 002 and 005
Regular Panel Decision

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.

UMG Recordings, Inc. sued Escape Media Group, Inc. for common-law copyright infringement and unfair competition. Escape asserted DMCA safe harbor and CDA preemption defenses, along with Donnelly Act and tortious interference counterclaims. The court denied UMG's motion to dismiss the DMCA safe harbor defense, ruling it applies to pre-1972 recordings. However, the court granted UMG's motion to dismiss the CDA preemption defense, clarifying that the CDA's intellectual property exemption covers both federal and state laws. Additionally, Escape's Donnelly Act counterclaim was dismissed, but UMG's motions to dismiss the tortious interference counterclaims were denied, rejecting defenses like the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and economic interest.

Copyright InfringementDMCA Safe HarborPre-1972 RecordingsUnfair CompetitionCommunications Decency ActTortious InterferenceDonnelly ActNew York Common LawInternet Service ProvidersAntitrust
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Police v. Charles Q.

A State Trooper, acquitted of criminal charges, had his criminal records sealed. His employer, the State Police (petitioner), subsequently sought to unseal these records for use in a disciplinary proceeding. The County Court initially granted the application to unseal. On appeal, the court reversed the County Court's order, ruling that the State Police, when conducting a disciplinary proceeding against one of its employees, is not acting as a 'law enforcement agency' under CPL 160.50 (1) (d) (ii) and thus has no statutory right to access sealed records. Furthermore, the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the 'compelling demonstration' required for exercising the court's inherent power to unseal records, as it did not demonstrate that other investigative avenues had been exhausted or were unavailable. Consequently, the application to unseal the records was denied.

Sealed recordsCriminal Procedure Law 160.50Disciplinary proceedingState TrooperPublic employerLaw enforcement agencyInherent court powerUnsealing recordsAppellate reviewAdministrative determination
References
6
Case No. ADJ3123745 (VNO 0551286) ADJ3791599 (VNO 0548958)
Regular
Apr 29, 2015

Steven Kroesen (Deceased), Jennifer Kroesen (Widow) vs. CITY OF TORRANCE, CITY OF LONG BEACH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a denial of death benefits for Steven Kroesen due to a dispute over the timeliness of the applicant's petition. The applicant claims their petition was timely delivered on November 12, 2014, via FedEx, but the WCAB's records show a filing date of November 13, 2014. The WCAB has returned the case to the administrative law judge for an evidentiary hearing to determine the exact filing date and address jurisdiction to consider the merits of the claim. This hearing will resolve whether the petition was filed within the statutorily allowed timeframe, considering Veterans Day and potential delays.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictionEvidentiary HearingJoint Findings and OrderReport of Workers' Compensation JudgeSupplemental PetitionFedEx deliveryR. SolisVeteran's Day
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mister Vee Productions, Inc. v. LeBlanc

This case involves a dispute over copyright infringement and breach of contract. Three corporations—Mister Vee, Delightful, and Vigor—sued individuals known as The Rhythm Makers, Paul Service, and corporations Arista Records, G.Q. Publishing, and Arista Music. Delightful alleged copyright infringement for the song 'Soul On Your Side.' Mister Vee and Vigor claimed The Rhythm Makers breached an exclusive agreement by recording other songs with Arista. The court addressed defendants' motion to dismiss non-copyright claims due to lack of pendent jurisdiction. The court ultimately declined jurisdiction and dismissed the state law claims, finding they did not share a 'common nucleus of operative fact' with the federal copyright claim.

Copyright InfringementBreach of ContractPendent JurisdictionFederal CourtState Law ClaimsMusic Industry DisputeExclusive Recording AgreementMotion to DismissJudicial EconomyCommon Nucleus of Operative Fact
References
12
Case No. ADJ11136283
Regular
Apr 15, 2019

JOSE ALFREDO SOLORZA vs. STERLING MACHINERY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order striking the QME panel. The Board found the WCJ's order lacked an evidentiary basis, as no evidence was admitted into the record to support the premature finding. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to establish a proper evidentiary record. The merits of the QME panel dispute were not decided at this stage.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelpremature panel requestPetition to StrikeWCJ Orderevidentiary recordadmitted evidencesubstantial evidenceLabor Code section 4060
References
5
Case No. ADJ11563618, ADJ11563620, ADJ11563654
Regular
May 02, 2019

MARIA LUQUE VIDALES vs. FOSTER FARMS, FOSTER FARMS LIVINGSTON

The WCAB granted applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order for a replacement QME panel. The original order was issued without an admitted evidentiary record, violating the requirement for decisions to be based on substantial evidence. The case is returned to the trial level to establish a proper record and adjudicate the disputed QME issue. This decision ensures due process by requiring an evidentiary basis before significant procedural orders are made.

Petition for RemovalReplacement QME PanelUntimely Supplemental ReportDiscovery DelayIrreparable HarmSubstantial EvidenceEvidentiary RecordRescind OrderReturn to Trial LevelFoster Farms
References
6
Case No. ADJ1309169 (AHM 0045971)
Regular
Jul 30, 2009

MARY PRUITT vs. CNA INSURANCE CO., AMERICAN CASUALTY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award of attorneys' fees under Labor Code § 5814.5. The Board found the prior decision lacked a proper evidentiary record and the necessary predicate finding of increased compensation under Labor Code § 5814 required for § 5814.5 attorneys' fees. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to ensure compliance with evidentiary record requirements and to re-evaluate the § 5814.5 attorneys' fees issue.

WCABReconsiderationLabor Code § 5814.5Attorneys' FeesIncreased CompensationLabor Code § 5814Findings and AwardWCJEvidence RecordMinutes of Hearing
References
1
Case No. ADJ1631280
Regular
Sep 02, 2025

FAREED ROSHANDELL vs. TRANSFORM SR HOLDING MANAGEMENT LLC/TRANSFORMCO, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Fareed Roshandell, who previously sustained injuries, sought reconsideration of a June 3, 2025 decision by a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The WCJ had taken the matter off calendar and made findings without an evidentiary record, including deeming a medical report invalid and noting service irregularities. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration but granted the petition to treat it as a petition for removal. Citing due process violations and the lack of an evidentiary record, the Board rescinded the WCJ's June 3, 2025 decision and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with their opinion.

RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationUtilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationMedical-Legal ReportSanctionsHome Health AidePhysician's AssistantDue ProcessEvidentiary Hearing
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grief Bros.

This employment discrimination case, filed July 1, 2002, involves Michael Sabo (Plaintiff) who alleges constructive discharge based on sexual harassment and claims severe emotional pain and suffering. The Defendant moved for a mental examination of Sabo under Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 and to compel the production of his medical records. Sabo alleged severe humiliation, anxiety, depression, loss of self-esteem, sleeplessness, and weight gain, and admitted to a history of depression, past suicide attempts, and current psychiatric treatment with prescribed medications. The court granted the Defendant's motions, finding that Sabo had placed his mental condition in controversy due to the nature and severity of his claims and his medical history, justifying both the examination and the production of relevant medical records. The court also granted Defendant's request for costs associated with compelling the medical records, but denied the request for costs related to the Rule 35 motion itself, and denied Plaintiff's request for counsel or recording during the examination.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressMental ExaminationRule 35Medical RecordsDepressionSuicide AttemptsCompensatory Damages
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Nan FF.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County which dismissed an adult adoptee's application to unseal her adoption records. The petitioner sought access to the records based on medical need, as per Domestic Relations Law § 114 (4). However, her application was denied because she failed to provide a certification from a licensed New York physician. Additionally, the submitted letters from an out-of-state social worker and physician did not sufficiently indicate that access to the records was "required" to address a serious illness, nor did they identify the specific information needed, thus failing to establish prima facie good cause under the statute. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's dismissal of the application.

Adoption LawRecord SealingMedical GroundsGood Cause RequirementStatutory ComplianceFamily Court ProcedureAppellate ReviewPhysician CertificationOut-of-State CertificationDocumentary Evidence
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,396 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