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. ADJ7071120
Regular
Jul 07, 2010

CARRIE JOHNSON vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

Defendant Federal Express sought removal of an order allowing applicant further discovery beyond the mandatory settlement conference (MSC). The Appeals Board granted removal, finding the applicant lacked due diligence in pursuing discovery before the MSC. Applicant's failure to object to the defendant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed further waived any objections to proceeding on the existing record. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the MSC order and returned the case to the trial level with discovery closed.

Petition for removalMandatory settlement conferenceOrder off calendarDue diligenceQualified Medical EvaluatorDiscovery closureDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedWaiver of objectionsPermanent disabilityIndustrial injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ18437146
Regular
Jun 30, 2025

SHANNON BROWN vs. LOS ANGELES LAKERS, FEDERAL INSURANCE C/O CHUBB GROUP LOS ANGELES

Defendant Los Angeles Lakers and Federal Insurance Company sought removal of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) order denying their petition to extend the cumulative trauma period and join additional defendants. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, finding that the WCJ's summary denial of the amended petition without a hearing or record violated due process. Consequently, the Board rescinded the WCJ's April 3, 2025 order and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

RemovalPetition for RemovalCumulative TraumaJoinderParty DefendantsWCJ OrderDue ProcessFair HearingAdjudicationRescinded
References
11
Case No. ADJ8207723
Regular
Oct 22, 2013

MARTA LINARES CLEMENTE vs. FEDERAL CLEANING CONTRACTORS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA CLAIMS

This case involves Marta Linares Clemente as the applicant against Federal Cleaning Contractors and Zurich North America Claims. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) considered a Petition for Removal filed by the applicant. The WCAB has issued an order denying this Petition for Removal, adopting the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. Therefore, the applicant's request to remove the case from its current procedural status has been rejected.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportdeny removalADJ8207723Federal Cleaning ContractorsZurich North America ClaimsMarta Linares Clementeadministrative law judgeMarina del Rey District Office
References
0
Case No. ADJ741218 (OAK 0217902)
Regular
Sep 14, 2018

ROBIN JOHNSON vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS, BROADSPIRE, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal filed by the applicant, Robin Johnson, in a workers' compensation matter against Federal Express and its adjusters. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because reconsideration is only appropriate for final orders that determine substantive rights, not interlocutory or procedural decisions. The WCAB also denied the Petition for Removal, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm justifying such action. Therefore, the WCAB dismissed the petition and denied removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityInterlocutory OrdersProcedural DecisionsEvidentiary DecisionsPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
10
Case No. ADJ6985337
Regular
Jul 02, 2012

Richard Brennan vs. Los Angeles Kings, Federal Insurance Company

This case concerns a workers' compensation applicant whose deposition was repeatedly missed, delaying discovery. The defendant employer requested removal of an order setting a trial date due to due process concerns regarding discovery and trial scope. The Appeals Board granted removal, amending the prior order to allow the admission of qualified medical examiner deposition transcripts, finding the defendant exercised due diligence. The Board affirmed the trial date but ensured the record would remain open for these crucial depositions.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedOther SettlementDue ProcessDiscoveryDepositionQualified Medical EvaluatorsQMEMandatory Settlement ConferenceMSC
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Express Corp. v. Dutschmann

Marcie Dutschmann, a former Federal Express employee, sued Federal Express for retaliatory discharge and breach of contract. A jury found that Federal Express terminated Dutschmann in retaliation for sexual harassment complaints and failed to exercise good faith in its Guaranteed Fair Treatment Procedure (GFTP) following her termination. Federal Express appealed the $89,000 judgment, raising five points related to sufficiency of evidence, contract formation from employee handbooks, breach of contract submission, good faith and fair dealing in employment, and attorney’s fees. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence for retaliatory discharge and that Federal Express's GFTP created a contractual duty of good faith, which it breached by manipulating the review process.

Retaliatory DischargeSexual HarassmentEmployment ContractEmployee HandbookGood Faith and Fair DealingPunitive DamagesAppellate ReviewJury VerdictDue ProcessGrievance Procedure
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 1980

Hale v. Tata Corp.

Plaintiff, a steamship agent, filed a Jones Act claim after being injured while boarding a vessel. The defendants, Tata Corp., Tata Chemicals, Ltd., and Oceans International Corp., removed the case to federal court, alleging fraudulent joinder to defeat federal jurisdiction. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied the plaintiff's motion to remand, ruling that the plaintiff was not a Jones Act seaman as a matter of law. Consequently, the court granted Oceans International Corp.'s motion for summary judgment, determining its liability fell under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), thus rendering it immune from suit and not obstructing removal jurisdiction. The court also granted leave for defendants to amend their petition for removal.

Jones ActSeaman StatusFederal RemovalSummary JudgmentLongshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA)Fraudulent JoinderMaritime Personal InjuryDistrict Court ProcedureFifth Circuit PrecedentJurisdiction
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Insurance v. Watnick

Jay and Marianna Watnick, New York residents, were severely injured in a car accident in Quebec with Jay Anderson. They were insured by Federal Insurance Company under a policy with uninsured and underinsured motorist endorsements. After seeking limited compensation from Quebec's Régie, Federal denied their claims, arguing Anderson's vehicle was neither uninsured nor underinsured, and sought to stay arbitration. The Supreme Court granted Federal's application to stay both claims, but the Appellate Division reversed the stay for the underinsured claim. The Court of Appeals agreed that Anderson's vehicle was not uninsured. However, it disagreed with the Appellate Division on the underinsured claim, ruling that the Watnicks had not exhausted by payment the limits of all applicable bodily insurance policies as required by statute and their policy. Consequently, the Court modified the Appellate Division's order, granting Federal's application to permanently stay arbitration of the underinsured motorist claim, thereby reinstating the Supreme Court's original decision to stay both claims.

Underinsured Motorist CoverageUninsured Motorist EndorsementCar AccidentQuebec Automobile Insurance ActExhaustion of Policy LimitsInsurance LawVehicle and Traffic LawArbitration StayNew York Insurance PolicyInter-jurisdictional Accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fulton Bellows, LLC v. Federal Insurance

This case involves Fulton Bellows, LLC (FBLLC) suing Federal Insurance Company for breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and bad faith refusal to pay an insurance claim. FBLLC sought defense coverage under its Employment Practices Liability (EPL) policy for an age discrimination lawsuit (Gaskey v. Fulton Bellows, LLC) filed against it. Federal Insurance denied coverage, citing a prior acts exclusion and untimely notice of the claim. The court denied Federal Insurance's motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the discriminatory acts occurred after the policy effective date and whether the late notice prejudiced the insurer, given it was within the policy period. However, the court granted summary judgment for Federal Insurance on the bad faith failure to pay claim and the TCPA claim, concluding that Federal Insurance asserted good faith defenses and its denial was not deceptive or unfair.

Insurance Policy InterpretationEmployment Practices Liability (EPL)Prior Acts ExclusionNotice ProvisionClaims-Made PolicyOccurrence PolicyPrejudice RuleBad Faith ClaimTennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)Summary Judgment
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2009

Federal Insurance Co. v. Ruiz

Federal Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment that sided with Carol Ruiz in a worker's compensation dispute. Ruiz, a secretary, suffered a workplace injury on January 24, 2005, and was later diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, which Federal disputed. The central issue was whether Federal waived its right to contest the compensability of Ruiz's carpal tunnel syndrome by failing to do so within the 60-day period stipulated by Texas Labor Code § 409.021(c). Both a hearing officer and an appeals panel evaluated whether the condition could have been reasonably discovered during that period, with the appeals panel concluding Federal had indeed waived its right. The trial court affirmed the appeals panel's decision, and the appellate court, aligning with precedents like Sanders v. American Protection Insurance Co., also affirmed, ruling that the condition's compensability was waived.

Worker's CompensationWaiver RuleTexas Labor CodeCarpal Tunnel SyndromeExtent of InjuryCompensability DisputeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance LiabilityRepetitive Trauma
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 7,558 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