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

United States v. Moss

Defendant Robert Moss, charged with methamphetamine offenses, moved to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his residence. He claimed the search warrant was based on evidence from illegal trash searches, violating his Fourth Amendment rights. Officer Bryan Harris conducted multiple trash searches after an anonymous tip, finding items associated with methamphetamine manufacturing. The court examined the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and the principles established in *Katz v. United States* and *California v. Greenwood* regarding the expectation of privacy in discarded trash. The motion was denied, as the court ruled that individuals lose any reasonable expectation of privacy in trash once it is placed for collection at the designated time, regardless of its location within the curtilage.

Fourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureMotion to SuppressTrash SearchExpectation of PrivacyCurtilageAbandoned PropertyCriminal ProcedureMethamphetamineDrug Offenses
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

K-Mart Corp. Store No. 7441 v. Trotti

This case involves an appeal by K-Mart Corporation against a judgment awarding an employee, Billie Trotti, damages for invasion of privacy. Trotti's personal locker, secured with her own lock, was searched by K-Mart management due to suspicion of theft by an unidentified employee. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, citing errors in the trial court's jury instructions regarding the definition of "invasion of privacy" and "mental anguish." Specifically, the lower court failed to include the "highly offensive to a reasonable person" standard for invasion of privacy and improperly allowed "mere embarrassment" as a separate element for damages. However, the court affirmed the jury's findings of invasion of privacy and malice, emphasizing that an employee's use of a personal lock creates a legitimate expectation of privacy.

invasion of privacyemployee locker searchintentional tortexemplary damagesactual damagesmental anguishjury instruction errorTexas appellate lawemployer liabilitywrongful intrusion
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bruzzese v. Guardsman Elevator Co.

In 1994, the claimant sustained head, neck, and back injuries at work, leading to an award for permanent partial disability, which included a wage expectancy adjustment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5). Following back surgery in 1998, the case was reopened, and the claimant was found to be temporarily totally disabled. Benefits for this temporary total disability were calculated based on the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of injury, without applying the wage expectancy adjustment. The claimant appealed, arguing that since the permanent partial disability preceded the temporary total disability, the wage expectancy adjustment should also apply to the latter period. The court disagreed, affirming the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, citing established case law that Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5) is applicable only to awards for permanent partial disability and not temporary disability.

Wage expectancyTemporary total disabilityPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' Compensation benefitsBack injuryAppellate reviewDisability calculationWorkers' Compensation BoardAverage weekly wage
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romero v. Albany Medical Center Hospital

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning a claimant's wage expectancy calculation. The employer challenged the Board's consideration of the claimant's potential earnings as a physician, rather than a part-time nursing aide, given her age and career aspirations. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the rule limiting wage expectancy to similar employment does not apply in atypical situations, especially when a claimant is actively pursuing a higher-earning career path like medicine, with their current job being secondary.

Wage ExpectancyFuture EarningsWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewCareer ProgressionAtypical EmploymentAverage Weekly WageMedical CareerPart-time WorkUnder 25 Claimant
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Maw v. Wal-Mart

The claimant, injured in 1999 as an 18-year-old sales associate, sought workers' compensation benefits with a focus on future wage expectancy as a professional dancer. Initially, her average weekly wage was set at $226.38, but a WCLJ later adjusted it to $800 after classifying her with a permanent partial disability. The Workers' Compensation Board modified this to $450, based on potential earnings as a dance instructor, arguing that her pursuit of a professional dancing career was too speculative at the time of injury. The Board also limited the application of this adjustment to awards made from the date of permanency, February 12, 2007. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support both the wage expectancy rate determination and the effective date of the adjustment.

Wage expectancyPermanent partial disabilityAverage weekly wageProfessional dancing careerDance instructor earningsSpeculative employmentAppellate reviewTemporary employmentFuture earnings potentialDate of permanency
References
7
Case No. ADJ1479326 (ANA 0411799) ADJ7233578
Regular
Oct 07, 2014

JONATHAN DUONG vs. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board overturned a WCJ's decision to exclude sub rosa surveillance video. The Board found no legal basis for excluding the video obtained in a mobile home park parking lot and a grocery store, as the applicant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in those public areas. The Board determined that the defendant would suffer significant prejudice from the exclusion, justifying removal of the case. Therefore, the sub rosa video was ruled admissible and may be provided to medical evaluators.

Sub rosa videoremovalreconsiderationadmissibilityinvasion of privacyreasonable expectation of privacycivil liabilityworkers' compensation fraudmedical-legal evaluatorworkers' compensation appeals board
References
20
Case No. ADJ2776530
Regular
Aug 07, 2015

AMY SMITH vs. WALTER CLAUDIO SALON & SPA, INC., STATE FARM INSURANCE

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal filed by the applicant, Amy Smith, challenging an order allowing the defendant to submit surveillance videotape evidence to an Agreed Medical Examiner. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order was not a final decision but an interlocutory ruling on evidence. The Appeals Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the applicant. The WCJ's report, adopted by the Board, concluded that the applicant had no reasonable expectation of privacy while exercising in a public gym and that the videotape was relevant to the claim.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tancredi v. Malfitano

Plaintiffs, a group of police officers, filed an action against various Town officials and the Town and Village of Harrison, New York. They alleged violations of their Fourth Amendment rights and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, specifically claiming that their conversations at the police department's front desk were secretly recorded. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that the plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the public and common workspace area of the police station's front desk, thereby dismissing both their Fourth Amendment and statutory claims.

Fourth AmendmentUnreasonable SearchExpectation of PrivacyWorkplace PrivacyPolice Department911 Communications SystemAudio RecordingSummary JudgmentFederal Civil Rights42 U.S.C. § 1983
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Moore

The case concerns defendant Kevin Glenn Moore's motions to suppress evidence obtained from searches of a car and a motel room, and an oral statement, citing violations of the Fourth Amendment and Miranda rights. District Judge Brieant denied all suppression motions. The court found the car searches lawful due to the victim's consent and Moore's lack of a legitimate expectation of privacy. The motel room search was validated by a federal warrant and the victim's inhabitant victim's consent, with the court also noting the applicability of the 'good faith exception'. Moore's statement, made voluntarily without interrogation after asserting his Miranda rights, was deemed admissible.

Suppression MotionFourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureProbable CauseWarrantless SearchConsent to SearchVictim ConsentMotel Room SearchVehicle SearchMiranda Rights
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Burns

In this criminal procedure case, Police Officer Roland Kloepfer responded to a radio dispatch of 'past assault, man with a gun'. During the encounter, a man carrying a small nylon bag unexpectedly backed into the officer, and the bag "bumped" his hand. Feeling a hard object, the officer squeezed the bag, confirming it felt like a gun, then recovered a loaded gun after placing the man against a wall and opening the bag. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing it was an unconstitutional search. The court denied the motion, ruling that the initial contact was fortuitous and the subsequent minimal squeeze of the bag was a subconstitutional intrusion, especially given the crowded public location where the expectation of privacy was minimal.

Fourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureMotion to SuppressCriminal ProcedurePolice EncounterReasonable Expectation of PrivacySubconstitutional SignificanceExclusionary RuleGun PossessionTerry Stop
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 364 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