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. ADJ10559387 ADJ8997142
Regular
Dec 11, 2018

Dave Zada vs. ALPRO MILLWORKING, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, overturning a prior order that denied a Farsi interpreter for trial. The Board found that denying the interpreter would cause substantial prejudice and irreparable harm, violating due process principles, especially given the applicant's admitted speech difficulties from a stroke. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including the provision of a Farsi interpreter. This decision emphasizes the applicant's right to an interpreter for trial, regardless of past communication abilities.

Petition for RemovalFarsi interpreterAmericans with Disabilities Actconstitutional rightsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJApplicantsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmdue process
References
2
Case No. ADJ14111846
Regular
Feb 10, 2023

NILOOFAR IRANI vs. TRENDZ BEAUTY EAST INC./SHAPES BROW BAR, AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision. The applicant contested the validity of the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) report, claiming a Farsi interpreter was absent during her examination. However, the WCJ found the AME's opinion persuasive based on evidence including the interpreter's affidavit, a declaration from the medical provider's office, and supporting documentation. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning, finding no good cause to overturn the decision.

Niloofar IraniTrendz Beauty East Inc.Shapes Brow BarAmGurd Insurance CompanyGallagher Bassett Services Inc.Petition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorAME reportsubstantial medical evidenceFarsi interpreter
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pisarek v. Cutlery

Claimant, a non-English speaker, verbally informed his supervisor of an accident on the day it occurred, with a coworker translating. As a result, he was given light duty and warned to be careful. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that this notification was timely under Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. The employer and its carrier appealed this decision, arguing it was untimely. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the sufficiency of oral notice falls within the Board's exclusive province and that substantial evidence supported their finding.

Workers' CompensationTimely NoticeOral NoticeEmployer NotificationWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceStatutory ComplianceJudicial AffirmationWork Injury
References
9
Case No. ADJ7174149
Regular
Dec 29, 2017

SAEID DEHGHANI vs. PAC PIZZA, LLC, PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE CO.

The defendant sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision awarding a lien claimant $1,340.00 for Farsi interpreting services at two hearings. The defendant argued the lien claimant failed to prove necessity without medical evidence and raised standing and filing issues for the first time. The WCAB affirmed the original award, finding the defendant waived new arguments by not raising them earlier and that the lien claimant successfully demonstrated the necessity of services for the applicant's meaningful participation. The WCAB also upheld the agreed-upon hourly rate for the interpreting services.

WCABReconsiderationLien ClaimantInterpreting ServicesFarsi SpeakerWCJBurden of ProofReasonablenessNecessityStipulation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 1982

In re the Claim of Caryl

The claimant was terminated for misconduct following a company awards dinner. During the event, he admittedly consumed a significant amount of alcohol, engaged in disruptive behavior including throwing objects, harassing waitresses, and making obscene gestures and insulting comments to speakers. He also attempted to assault a superior and threatened another, leading to his arrest. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially granted benefits, deeming the misconduct not 'in connection with' his employment. However, the court reversed this, ruling that the employer-sponsored event was indeed connected to employment, and employees must uphold behavioral standards even off-duty, thus disqualifying the claimant from benefits.

misconductunemployment insuranceemployee terminationcompany eventoff-duty conductintoxicationworkplace behaviorappeal boardemployer responsibilityemployee obligations
References
7
Case No. 08-05-00193-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2006

Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Company, a Division of Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc. v. Jose Gomez

This interlocutory appeal concerns the trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration filed by Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Company against its former employee, Jose Gomez. Gomez, a Spanish speaker, alleged he was unaware of the company's arbitration policy in the employee handbook and claimed his termination was retaliatory for filing a workers' compensation claim and discriminatory due to his age, violating Texas Labor Code Chapter 21. The Court of Appeals, citing its previous decision in Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Co. v. Chavelle, dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, determining that the Federal Arbitration Act applied and mandamus was the appropriate method of recourse.

Age DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimArbitration PolicyInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionMotion to Compel ArbitrationEmployee HandbookTexas Labor CodeFederal Arbitration Act
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Storage & Processors, Inc. v. Reyes

Justice SCHNEIDER's concurring opinion supports the Court's decision that employers must adhere to fair notice requirements, including the express-negligence doctrine and conspicuousness, when enrolling employees in non-subscriber workers’ compensation benefit plans. The Justice provides an additional rationale, highlighting that workers are typically less sophisticated than the employers who draft these agreements, often unaware of the rights they forfeit. The case of Reyes, a non-English speaker who signed an English contract despite a Spanish summary, is cited as an example of this disparity. Justice SCHNEIDER argues that due to this inherent power imbalance, there is a strong public policy justification to mandate that these non-subscriber agreements satisfy both fair notice requirements.

Workers' CompensationNon-subscriber agreementsFair noticeExpress-negligenceConspicuousnessEmployer liabilityEmployee rightsContract lawPublic policyDisparity of bargaining power
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2008

Riches v. New York City Council

This case concerns an appeal affirming the dismissal of a summary judicial inquiry requested by eight citizens against the New York City Council and Speaker Quinn. The petitioners sought an inquiry into the Council's practice of allocating funds to "fictitious organizations" or "holding codes" during its budgeting process, alleging violations of the New York City Charter. The motion court, and subsequently the appellate court, determined that the Supreme Court justice appropriately exercised discretion in denying the inquiry. The decision was based on reasons including extensive public disclosure of the practice, ongoing investigations by governmental agencies, and the determination that the alleged transgression was not the type of venal act the Charter provision was designed to address. The court affirmed that granting such an inquiry is a matter of sound judicial discretion.

Summary judicial inquiryNew York City Charter Section 1109City Council budgetingFictitious organizationsGovernmental misconductAbuse of discretionAppellate reviewJudicial discretionPublic interestOngoing investigations
References
17
Case No. 3-93-124-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 1994

Reuters America, Inc. v. John Sharp, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, Martha Whitehead, Treasurer of the State of Texas, and Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas

Reuters America, Inc. challenged the constitutionality of a Texas state tax scheme that taxed information services but exempted newspapers. Reuters argued this violated the free speech and equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions. The Comptroller had audited Reuters and assessed additional taxes based on its classification as an information service. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State. The Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the tax, concluding that it did not infringe upon First Amendment rights as it was not content-based, did not target a small group of speakers, and was a generally applicable sales tax. The court also found that the tax scheme was rationally related to legitimate state interests, such as promoting literacy and administrative economy, and therefore did not violate equal protection.

Constitutional LawTaxationFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionInformation Services TaxNewspaper ExemptionTexas Court of AppealsFreedom of PressState Tax SchemeJudicial Review
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 16 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