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. Visa U.S.A. Inc.

This civil action, brought by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice against Visa and MasterCard, alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act concerning governance and exclusionary rules. Following an earlier decision finding exclusionary rules anti-competitive, this Opinion addresses various proposed modifications to the court's Proposed Final Judgment. The court rejected anti-discrimination provisions and the exclusion of corporate and small business cards from the remedy. It clarified provisions regarding dual issuance of debit cards, the liability of Visa International, and modified the rescission period for agreements. Additionally, the court specified that MasterCard's Competitive Programs Policy repeal applies only to issuers. The Final Judgment is set to expire in ten years.

Antitrust LawSherman ActCredit Card NetworksDebit Card ExclusivityFinal Judgment ModificationMarket CompetitionExclusionary PracticesFinancial ServicesCorporate CardsSmall Business Cards
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pizzo v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Kathleen Pizzo appealed the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's final determination denying her disability insurance benefits. The District Court reviewed the ALJ's decision, which had assigned no weight to the treating physician's opinion and significant weight to a consulting physician's report. The court found that the ALJ erred by failing to give appropriate weight to the treating physician's opinion, not adequately developing the administrative record to obtain missing medical notes, and giving undue weight to the consulting physician's report which did not explicitly support the capacity for sedentary work. Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with the District Court's decision, granting the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent of the remand and denying the Commissioner's cross-motion.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkMedical EvidenceRemandSubstantial EvidenceRecord Development
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raniere v. Citigroup Inc.

This opinion grants final approval of a class action settlement in a wage dispute case. Plaintiffs, led by Tara Raniere, alleged that Defendants Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., and CitiMortgage, Inc. deprived them of overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached a settlement in principle for a maximum amount of $4,650,000, to be distributed among the class members, class counsel for fees and expenses, named plaintiffs for service awards, and a settlement administrator. The court also certified the settlement class and approved the requested attorney's fees for Wigdor LLP and reimbursement of litigation expenses.

OvertimeWage DisputeFLSANYLLClass ActionSettlement ApprovalAttorney's FeesIncentive AwardsCitigroupHome Lending Specialist
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2016

Hooper v. Colvin

Plaintiff Deborah Hooper sought judicial review of a final determination by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn Colvin, denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The U.S. Magistrate Judge, James L. Cott, found the ALJ's step three disability determination supported by evidence. However, the Court ruled that the ALJ failed to fully develop the administrative record at step four by not securing a comprehensive medical assessment of Hooper's mental impairments from a treating or consultative physician. The record lacked a complete and consistent medical opinion, particularly from Hooper's primary-care physician, Dr. Anna Timell, who provided inconclusive assessments. Consequently, the case was remanded for further proceedings to obtain necessary medical opinions and to reassess the need for a vocational expert.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeSocial Security ActJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeMedical OpinionFunctional LimitationsMental ImpairmentsBipolar DisorderImpulse Control Disorder
References
50
Case No. ADJ10029050
Regular
Mar 11, 2016

MARIBEL SANCHEZ vs. GRAPEVINE CATERING, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Board dismissed the Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order, as only final orders are subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900(a). The WCJ's order concerning the invalidity of a QME panel and the issuance of a new one was deemed an interlocutory discovery matter, not a final decision. Even if considered a petition for removal, the Board would have denied it on the merits because the Medical Unit misinterpreted QME Regulation 30(d)(1) by limiting QME panel requests to defendants, which conflicts with Labor Code sections 4060 and 4062.2. The Board expressed no opinion on the appropriateness of the pain management specialty, noting the Defendant could dispute it separately.

QME panelMedical Unitpain managementorthopedicsPetition for Reconsiderationfinal orderLabor Code section 5900Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.removalLabor Code section 5310
References
8
Case No. 02 MDL 1499, 02 Civ. 4712, 02 Civ. 6218, 03 Civ. 1024, 03 Civ. 4524
Regular Panel Decision

Ntsebeza v. Daimler AG

This Opinion & Order addresses the defendants' motion to certify for interlocutory appeal three key issues arising from a lawsuit filed by South Africans against multinational corporations for allegedly aiding and abetting torts during the apartheid era. The defendants sought certification on the application of case-specific deference, the mens rea standard for aiding and abetting under international law, and the vicarious liability standard for foreign subsidiaries. The court denied certification for case-specific deference, concluding it did not involve a controlling question of law, lacked substantial grounds for disagreement, and an appeal would not materially advance the litigation. While acknowledging substantial ground for disagreement on the mens rea issue, the court still denied certification, asserting an immediate appeal would not expedite the litigation's termination. Finally, certification for the vicarious liability standard was denied, as the court found no substantial ground for difference of opinion. Consequently, the defendants' motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal and a request for a stay of proceedings were entirely denied.

Interlocutory AppealAlien Tort Claims ActAiding and AbettingCustomary International LawSouth African ApartheidMultinational CorporationsCase-Specific DeferencePolitical Question DoctrineInternational ComityMens Rea
References
19
Case No. ADJ426447 (RDG 0129495)
Regular
Jul 16, 2010

Shane Guest vs. Barrett Business Services

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as he was not aggrieved by a final order. The applicant sought to set aside a settlement concerning the Employment Development Department's (EDD) lien, arguing it was made in error. However, the Board found that the WCJ had not yet made a final determination on the EDD lien, which is a prerequisite for the Board to have jurisdiction to approve or disapprove such a settlement. Therefore, the matter is returned to the trial level for a final determination of the EDD's lien.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalEDD LienTrial LevelFinal DeterminationTemporary DisabilityEmployment Development DepartmentStipulationDeferred Lien
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Tucker v. City of Plattsburgh Fire Department

Justice Egan Jr. dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that the Workers' Compensation Board abused its discretion in characterizing the medical expert's proof as speculative. The dissent focuses on the expert opinion of Michael Lax, who found a probable causal connection between the claimant's occupation as a firefighter, his exposure to carcinogenic materials, and his diagnosed prostate cancer. Lax's opinion was based on the claimant's 24 years of exposure, absence of other prostate cancer risk factors, and epidemiological studies. The dissent emphasizes that medical opinions do not require absolute certainty, only a reasonable probability supported by a rational basis. The dissent notes that at various administrative stages, a causal relationship was found, highlighting the lack of unanimity in the final Board decision.

Prostate CancerFirefighterCausal ConnectionMedical Expert OpinionSpeculative ProofWorkers' Compensation LawOccupational ExposureCarcinogenic MaterialsDissenting OpinionBurden of Proof
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheahan v. Brady

Plaintiff Danielle Sheahan, a white woman, was terminated from her position at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in April 1992, after being hired in May 1991. The defendant, the Secretary of the Treasury, claimed she was fired for submitting an altered college transcript. However, the plaintiff alleged racial and color discrimination, asserting that her mostly Black co-workers and supervisors conspired against her, fabricating the transcript alteration accusation. Sheahan pursued administrative remedies, first with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which dismissed her complaint for lack of jurisdiction on October 16, 1992. Subsequently, she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which also dismissed her case on October 22, 1992, based on the erroneous belief that an MSPB appeal was still pending. Plaintiff then filed a civil suit in federal court on November 12, 1992. Critically, on November 9, 1992, the Treasury Department had filed a Request to Reopen the EEOC's October 22 decision. The court examined the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, specifically concerning the exhaustion of administrative remedies and the finality of EEOC actions. Under 29 C.F.R. § 1613.234, a timely request to reopen by either party renders an EEOC decision non-final for the purpose of initiating a civil action. Consequently, the defendant's request to reopen on November 9, 1992, made the EEOC's October 22 decision non-final before Sheahan filed her lawsuit on November 12, 1992. Therefore, the court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice, and suggested that either party could renew a request to reopen the EEOC decision, anticipating it would be granted given the EEOC's original erroneous finding.

Federal employment discriminationTitle VIICivil Rights ActRacial discriminationColor discriminationWrongful terminationAdministrative exhaustionEEOC decision finalitySubject matter jurisdictionMotion to dismiss
References
11
Case No. ADJ7744441
Regular
Jan 03, 2020

PAULIN SANDOVAL vs. RANSOME COMPANY, TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration due to an incomplete record preventing a meaningful review of the applicant's contentions regarding apportionment and permanent disability. The WCJ's decision is rescinded and the case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to create a proper record. Issues surrounding medical opinions on employability and apportionment need to be revisited by the WCJ. The Board expressed no final opinion on the merits of the applicant's petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPaulin SandovalRansome CompanyTravelers Casualty & Surety CompanyReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryLow BackPsycheApportionment
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 19,784 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