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. ADJ9859900
Regular
Dec 24, 2018

KRSYTOL LARTEY vs. FOREVER 21, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant alleged injury to her throat and voice due to her employment with Forever 21. The defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's finding of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE), arguing the medical examiner's opinion lacked substantial evidence. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the QME's reports and deposition testimony provided a reasoned opinion based on examination and history. The Board concluded that the QME's opinion constituted substantial evidence supporting the AOE/COE finding.

AOE/COEOtolaryngology QMEAlfred N. RovenMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusMRSAIndustrial causationPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJDust exposure
References
2
Case No. ADJ11447249; ADJ11447255
Regular
Dec 07, 2020

IDALIA PEREZ vs. FOREVER 21, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, BROADSPIRE

This case involves Idalia Perez's petitions for removal and disqualification against Forever 21 and its insurer, Ace American Insurance. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied both petitions. The Board found that Perez failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm required for removal, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Regarding disqualification, the Board determined the petition was untimely and lacked sufficient factual basis, specific allegations of bias, or a declaration under penalty of perjury as required by statute.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJJudicial DisqualificationLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641Substantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
3
Case No. ADJ9667162, ADJ9793109
Regular
Dec 07, 2016

ALMA LOPEZ CASTANEDA vs. FOREVER 21, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted reconsideration, on its own motion, of a prior order denying the applicant's petition for reconsideration in the case of Alma Lopez Castaneda vs. Forever 21. This action is taken to allow for further study of the legal and factual issues involved. All subsequent correspondence and filings related to this reconsideration must be submitted directly to the Appeals Board Commissioners in San Francisco, not to district offices or via e-filing. Trial-level documents unrelated to the petition for reconsideration will continue to be filed through EAMS.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationBoard MotionPetition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionGranting ReconsiderationLegal IssuesFactual IssuesCommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
0
Case No. ADJ9667162 ADJ9793109
Regular
Oct 18, 2016

Alma Lopez Castaneda vs. Forever 21, New Hampshire Insurance, Broadspire

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Forever 21's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's order for a replacement QME panel. The defendant's submission of a letter to the QME referencing the applicant's deposition testimony, after the applicant objected to it as non-medical information, constituted a violation of Labor Code section 4062.3. While not deemed a prohibited ex parte communication, the Board found defendant's action violated the statutory requirement to withhold such information pending WCJ adjudication. Consequently, the applicant was entitled to a new QME evaluation as a remedy for this procedural violation.

QME PanelEx Parte CommunicationLabor Code Section 4062.3Non-Medical InformationJoint Findings of Fact and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorDWC Medical UnitWCJDeclaration of Readiness
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2005

Smith v. 21 West LLC Limited Liability Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied defendant Bravo’s motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss defendant 21 West’s cross claims for contribution and indemnification. Bravo failed to establish that the plaintiff was its employee or that it operated as a joint venture, thereby not barring 21 West’s cross claims under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Furthermore, Bravo could not demonstrate insufficient control over the work to negate negligence liability, nor prove supervision over 21 West. The appellate court found that the parties’ conduct, including Bravo commencing work and obtaining an insurance certificate, manifested an intent to be bound by an unsigned contract. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously affirmed the denial of Bravo's summary judgment motion, upholding 21 West's cross claims.

Summary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawCross ClaimsContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationEmployee StatusJoint VentureNegligence Liability
References
4
Case No. 08-CV-3175 (JG)(JO)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2009

Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. Bercosa Corp.

Century 21 Real Estate LLC sued Bercosa Corp. and its owner Pedro Bernard for breach of contract and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The defendants failed to respond to the complaint, leading to a motion for default judgment. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein issued a Report and Recommendation, which District Judge John Gleeson adopted, finding the defendants liable. The court awarded Century 21 a total of $319,832.32 in monetary damages, including contract claims, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Additionally, the defendants were permanently enjoined from using the Century 21 Marks and ordered to cooperate in an audit of Bercosa’s books and records.

Default JudgmentTrademark InfringementLanham ActBreach of ContractFranchise AgreementMonetary DamagesInjunctive ReliefAttorneys' FeesAudit OrderWillful Violation
References
66
Case No. ADJ6766619 (MF) ADJ6766620
Regular
Feb 28, 2018

MARIA DURAN vs. FOREVER 21 RETAIL, INC., CHUBB GROUP

This case involves Maria Duran's request for home health care services, which was initially denied by utilization review (UR) and upheld by Independent Medical Review (IMR). The applicant argued that her need for assistance with household chores and personal hygiene fell outside the scope of the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) guidelines as applied. While the Board acknowledges that the specific MTUS guideline used in this case was later found to be an invalid regulation in a related case, it affirmed the original decision. This affirmance was based on the finding that the initial request for services was too vague, lacking specific details on the type, frequency, and duration of care, and that a revised request could be made.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria DuranForever 21 RetailInc.Chubb GroupOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationIndependent Medical ReviewIMRUtilization ReviewUR
References
9
Case No. 651884/2014
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2017

1552 Broadway Retail Owner LLC v. McDonald's Corp.

The case concerns a dispute between 1552 Broadway Retail Owner LLC (Landlord) and McDonald's Corporation (Tenant) regarding the fair market value (FMV) rent under a commercial lease. The core issue involved the interpretation of the "highest and best use of the demised premises" clause, which was initially ruled upon by the court in Landlord's favor before arbitration. Subsequently, Tenant allegedly committed misconduct during arbitration by relitigating this court-decided issue and submitting an expert opinion discrediting the court's ruling. Landlord moved to vacate the arbitration award, citing Tenant's misconduct. The court denied Landlord's motion and granted Tenant's cross-motion to confirm the award, determining that Landlord failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged misconduct prejudiced the arbitrators' decision.

ArbitrationLease DisputeFair Market ValueHighest and Best UseMisconductVacatur of Arbitration AwardConfirmation of Arbitration AwardJudicial ReviewCPLR 7511Contract Interpretation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamberson v. Six West Retail Acquisition, Inc.

Plaintiff Gregory Lamberson, a Caucasian male, sued his employer, Six West Retail Acquisition Inc., and individuals Sheldon Solow and Jeffery Jacobs, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and New York law. Lamberson claimed he was unlawfully discharged after complaining about the reassignment of an African-American employee, Derrick Caver, from a public-facing role due to his appearance. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Lamberson was fired for poor managerial judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the race discrimination claims, finding Lamberson, as a Caucasian, was not a member of a protected class and failed to show a hostile work environment or infringement on his right to interracial association. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claims, ruling that Lamberson raised a triable issue as to whether his complaints about Caver's reassignment were protected activity and if there was a causal connection to his discharge. Consequently, retaliation claims against Six West, Solow, and Jacobs survive.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIRace DiscriminationEmployment LawUnlawful DischargeSummary JudgmentManagerial DutiesEmployee ReassignmentHostile Work Environment
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nabi v. Hudson Group (HG) Retail, LLC

Plaintiffs Mohammed Nabi and Rifat Rizvi brought an action against Hudson Group (HG) Retail, LLC and Airport Management Services, LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law for misclassifying managers and failing to pay overtime. Plaintiffs sought conditional collective certification for a nationwide class of various managerial employees. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs' evidence was too localized to support a nationwide class and failed to demonstrate that the proposed class was

FLSANYLLConditional Collective CertificationClass ActionMisclassificationOvertime PayExempt EmployeesNon-Exempt EmployeesManagerial DutiesRetail Industry
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 488 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