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
May 07, 1998

People v. Tullo

In this case, the court addresses an application for an ex parte order of protection against a defendant charged with aggravated harassment in the second degree, stemming from a single threatening telephone call. The Assistant District Attorney sought the order based on new facts not included in the original accusatory instrument. Judge Joel B. Gewanter denied the application, interpreting CPL 530.13 (2) to limit ex parte orders of protection solely to factual allegations present within the filed accusatory instrument. The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. It suggested that for new charges, a new complaint and arrest would be the appropriate procedure for issuing such an order.

Aggravated HarassmentSecond DegreeEx Parte Order of ProtectionCriminal Procedure LawCPL 530.13MisdemeanorFirst ImpressionTelephone CallThreatening StatementDue Process
References
0
Case No. ADJ16326594
Regular
Oct 31, 2025

Peter Pham vs. Southern California Edison

Defendant sought removal of a WCJ's December 12, 2023 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), which denied their motion for a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The defendant argued that the applicant's email to the QME constituted impermissible ex parte contact. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinding the F&O, and substituting new Findings of Fact that the email was indeed impermissible ex parte contact, thereby ordering a replacement QME panel. Additionally, while earlier QME reports and deposition testimony by Dr. Weiss remain in evidence, her report dated July 22, 2023, was stricken to preserve the appearance of impartiality in the medical evaluation process.

Ex parte contactQualified Medical EvaluatorRemoval petitionFindings of Fact and OrderLabor Code Section 4062.3Appearance of impartialityMedical evaluation processReplacement QME panelPsychiatric injuryStipulated facts
References
14
Case No. ADJ10266237; ADJ10401171
Regular
Aug 15, 2025

WILLIAM AREY vs. MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC; HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company's petition for reconsideration. The defendant challenged the April 22, 2025 Joint Findings of Fact and Order, which found that applicant William Arey sustained industrial injuries to his brain, head, nervous system, and circulatory system. Defendant contended the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) Dr. Roger Bertoldi's report was not substantial medical evidence and that ex parte contact occurred due to applicant's sister's participation in the evaluation. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding Dr. Bertoldi's report to be substantial medical evidence and concluding that the sister's assistance was necessary and permissible due to applicant's significant memory impairment, thus not constituting impermissible ex parte contact.

AMEAgreed Medical Evaluatorex parte contactsubstantial medical evidenceindustrial injurycumulative injuryspecific injuryres judicatacollateral estoppelPetition for Reconsideration
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tainsky v. Clarins USA, Inc.

Plaintiff Harriet Tainsky filed a lawsuit against her employer Clarins USA, Inc. and her supervisor Cathy Lawrence, alleging sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII, and negligent supervision against Clarins. Tainsky claimed Lawrence subjected her to unwanted physical contact, verbal sexual comments, and retaliated against her after she complained. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no sexual harassment occurred and Tainsky was fired for poor performance. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the sexual harassment and retaliation claims against Clarins, thus denying summary judgment in part. However, the Title VII claims against Lawrence individually were dismissed, as Title VII applies only to employers. The negligent supervision claim against Clarins also remains for trial, specifically regarding events after Clarins had notice of Lawrence's alleged misbehavior.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIINegligent SupervisionEmployment DiscriminationSame-Sex HarassmentFederal CourtDistrict Court
References
17
Case No. 13-71700
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Trustees v. Kern (In re Kern)

The Plaintiffs, the Board of Trustees of benefit funds under ERISA, sought to declare debts owed by Defendant Richard Kern, principal owner of Cool Sheetmetal, Inc. (CSI), non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The core issue was whether monies deducted from employee paychecks but not remitted to the benefit funds constituted non-dischargeable debts under § 523(a)(4) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court ruled that monies deducted for a vacation fund are non-dischargeable because they were subject to a statutory trust, Kern acted as a fiduciary, and committed defalcation. However, deductions for union assessments and political action league (PAL) funds were deemed dischargeable, as no statutory trust was established for these. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' claim under § 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury was dismissed. The Court granted summary judgment in part for Plaintiffs regarding the Vacation Fund deductions, with the exact amount to be determined at trial, and granted summary judgment in part for Defendant on the other claims.

BankruptcyNon-dischargeabilityERISAFiduciary DutyDefalcationSummary JudgmentEmployee ContributionsVacation FundUnion AssessmentsPolitical Action League (PAL)
References
10
Case No. ADJ9180559
Regular
Sep 18, 2015

JACKIE SUEHIRO (Dec'd), ALVIN SUEHIRO (Husband) vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, permissibly self-insured, adjusted by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinding a prior Minute Order. The WCJ had found ex-parte communication by the defendant and ordered a new QME panel without a trial or sworn testimony. The Board found this violated the defendant's due process rights, as no evidence was presented to support the ex-parte communication finding. The case is returned to the trial level for a hearing on all issues, including alleged ex-parte communication, with parties afforded the chance to present evidence and witnesses.

Petition for RemovalMinute OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorEx-parte CommunicationDue ProcessWCJReplacement QME PanelLabor Code Section 5313Admitted EvidenceProof of Service
References
1
Case No. ADJ11584415
Regular
Sep 30, 2019

GUY SYLVA vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

This case involves an applicant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that denied temporary disability benefits and a motion to strike a Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) reports. The applicant alleged ex parte communication between the defendant and the QME, violating Labor Code section 4062.3. The WCAB granted reconsideration, finding that the issue of ex parte communication was not adequately addressed due to conflicting dates and unadmitted evidence. The matter is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings to determine if ex parte communication occurred and to address the temporary disability issue.

WCABAOE/COEQMEex parte communicationLabor Code section 4062.3Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderremovaltemporary disabilityprimary treating physician
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Avon Associates, Inc.

This case addresses a motion by defendants mortgagors to vacate an ex parte order appointing a receiver during a mortgage foreclosure action. Defendants asserted that the lack of notice for the receiver's appointment violated CPLR 6401 and their Federal constitutional due process rights, citing Fuentes v Shevin. The court found that New York's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 1325 (subd 1) permits ex parte receiver appointments when the mortgage contract explicitly waives notice. Furthermore, the court distinguished the present case from Fuentes, concluding that the sophisticated business operators involved had knowingly and voluntarily waived their right to notice, akin to the circumstances in Overmyer Co. v Frick Co. Based on these findings, the court affirmed the validity of the ex parte order and denied the defendants' motion to vacate the appointment of the receiver.

Mortgage ForeclosureReceiver AppointmentEx Parte OrderDue ProcessWaiver of NoticeContractual WaiverCPLRReal Property Actions and Proceedings LawConstitutional LawBusiness Disputes
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2017

Philpott v. New York

Plaintiff Jeffery Philpott, a former Vice President at SUNY’s College of Optometry, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit alleging sexual orientation discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Initially, the State of New York and the University of the State of New York were named as defendants but were later dismissed, as was a claim under the ADA, leaving only State University of New York (SUNY) as a defendant. The court evaluated whether sexual orientation discrimination is cognizable under Title VII, finding that it is due to the evolving legal landscape and recent circuit court decisions. It concluded that plaintiff plausibly alleged his claims and that they were not time-barred. However, the court dismissed the Title IX claim, determining that Title VII is the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination in federally funded educational institutions. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.

Sexual Orientation DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIITitle IXMotion to DismissGender StereotypingStatute of LimitationsEmployment DiscriminationFederal Court
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2015

Doe v. Hagenbeck

Plaintiff Jane Doe, a former cadet, sued West Point officials and the U.S. for alleged sexual hostility and discrimination at the academy, which she claims forced her to resign. She alleged violations of her Fifth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection rights, as well as breach of contract and Federal Tort Claims Act claims. The court, presided over by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. While dismissing Doe's due process, FTCA, and contract claims, and dismissing the U.S. from the case, the court allowed her equal protection claim against the individual defendants, Hagenbeck and Rapp, to proceed. The court reasoned that Doe sufficiently alleged rampant gender discrimination at West Point, which violated her constitutional right to equal protection, and that the Feres doctrine did not bar this specific claim.

Gender DiscriminationSexual HarassmentEqual ProtectionDue ProcessWest PointMilitary AcademyMotion to DismissBivens ClaimFederal Tort Claims ActLittle Tucker Act
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 2,059 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