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. ADJ10434987
Regular
Jan 06, 2023

EZRA CENTENO vs. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION, CORVEL CORPORATION

This case involves an applicant claiming psychological injury, neck pain, headaches, and sleep disorder due to events at Harbor Freight Tools. The defendant argues the injury was substantially caused by lawful, non-discriminatory, good faith personnel actions, which would bar compensation under Labor Code section 3208.3(h). The Appeals Board rescinded the prior award, finding the trial judge used too narrow a standard for "good faith personnel actions" and did not adequately analyze them under the required multi-level approach. The case is returned for further proceedings to properly develop the medical record and reassess the personnel action defense.

Psychiatric injuryGood faith personnel actionLabor Code section 3208.3(h)Substantial causePredominant causeTemporomandibular joint disorderAOE/COEWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardReconsideration
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

Riley v. HSBC USA, INC.

Plaintiff Dawn Riley alleged employment discrimination based on race against HSBC USA, Inc. and HSBC Bank USA, National Association, under Title VII and New York Human Rights Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Riley's termination—poor job performance. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment in part to dismiss HSBC USA, Inc. as a defendant and denying it as to HSBC Bank USA, National Association, finding material issues of fact regarding pretextual discrimination. Chief Judge William M. Skretny accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied the objections, and partially granted/denied the motion for summary judgment, terminating HSBC USA, Inc. as a defendant. The case will proceed against HSBC Bank USA, National Association.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationReverse DiscriminationSummary JudgmentPretextDisparate TreatmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawReduction in ForcePerformance Review
References
0
Case No. ADJ10004945
Regular
Sep 06, 2016

ANABELL VASQUEZ vs. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., CORVEL CORPORATION

The Applicant, Anabell Vasquez, filed a Petition for Removal regarding a trial setting order. Before the Board could act on this petition, the Applicant withdrew it, citing a settlement agreement reached between the parties. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal.

Petition for RemovalWithdrawal of PetitionSettlement AgreementWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissalTrial SettingMinute OrderHarbor Freight ToolsCorvel CorporationADJ10004945
References
0
Case No. ADJ7522095
Regular
May 22, 2014

EUGENIA GRANADOS vs. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Eugenia Granados' Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the administrative law judge's Report and Recommendation. No specific reasons for dismissal are detailed in this order. The dismissal was issued on May 22, 2014.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalReport and RecommendationAdministrative Law JudgeHarbor Freight Tools USAInc.Travelers Property Casualty CompanyEugenia GranadosADJ7522095
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02098 [181 AD3d 523]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2020

Rossi v. Doka USA, Ltd.

Plaintiff Domenick Rossi, a carpenter, sustained injuries while using a ratchet at a World Trade Center construction site, asserting a product liability claim against defendant Doka USA, Ltd., which supplied the tool. The Supreme Court dismissed Rossi's complaint for spoliation of evidence (the missing ratchet) and denied his cross-motion for sanctions against Doka for alleged email destruction. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the absence of the ratchet did not fatally prejudice Doka's defense, thus reinstating Rossi's complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Rossi's cross-motion for spoliation sanctions, finding insufficient evidence of Doka's culpable conduct regarding email preservation.

Product liabilitySpoliation of evidenceDesign defectRatchetWorkplace injuryConstruction accidentAppellate procedureSanctionsNegligenceProximate cause
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2010

Pavlov v. Debt Resolvers USA, Inc.

Claimant Dmitri Pavlov sued Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. after the defendant failed to return funds deposited for credit card debt resolution, alleging the defendant's services were ineffective and its fees excessive. The court determined that Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. engaged in "budget planning" as defined by New York law but was not licensed or properly incorporated as a not-for-profit entity for such activities. Consequently, the agreement between Pavlov and Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. was declared illegal and unenforceable. The court ruled in favor of Pavlov, ordering a refund of the deposited funds totaling $1,693.60. Additionally, the defendant was found to have engaged in deceptive business practices under General Business Law § 349, leading to an extra $50 award for the claimant, bringing the total judgment to $1,743.60 plus interest.

Small ClaimsDebt ResolutionBudget PlanningUnlicensed ActivityConsumer ProtectionDeceptive Business PracticesContract EnforceabilityNew York LawCredit RepairDebt Settlement
References
2
Case No. ADJ746026 (SJO 0221595) ADJ1315805 (SJO 0221596) ADJ2490198 (SJO 0221597) ADJ1525795 (SJO 0234303)
Regular
Feb 03, 2010

GILBERT GASKA vs. EAST SIDE UNION HIGH SCHOOL, ACE/USA, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCATION

This case involves claims for reimbursement between two insurers covering applicant's industrial injuries. CIGA, representing an insolvent insurer, sought reimbursement from ACE/USA for medical benefits paid. The arbitrator initially awarded CIGA approximately $105,000, later amended to $138,555.15 due to a clerical error. ACE/USA petitioned for reconsideration, arguing CIGA's claim was untimely and improperly based on contribution or subrogation. The Board dismissed CIGA's petition as moot because the corrected award had already been issued. The Board denied ACE/USA's petition, clarifying CIGA's claim was for reimbursement under Insurance Code section 1063.1, not untimely contribution or subrogation, and that ACE/USA was liable due to providing "other insurance" for the same injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAACE/USAFremont Compensation Insurance Companyinsolvencycumulative injuryspecific injuryreimbursementcontribution
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Indian Harbor Insurance v. Global Transport System, Inc.

Indian Harbor Global Insurance Company filed a complaint against Global Transport System seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not obligated to indemnify Global for the loss of Barge MST 17, and a stay of arbitration proceedings. Global moved to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, relying on a binding arbitration clause in their insurance policy. The dispute arose after the Barge MST 17 sank following Global's attempt to amend its policy for navigation coverage, which Indian Harbor claimed was not properly accepted. The court, presided over by District Judge Sweet, granted Global's motion, dismissing the complaint and compelling Indian Harbor to proceed to arbitration, finding that the broad arbitration clause covered disputes regarding policy modifications or terminations.

Arbitration AgreementInsurance Coverage DisputeMaritime LawPolicy EndorsementContract InterpretationFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureFederal Arbitration ActMotion to DismissDeclaratory ReliefSeaworthiness
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pease v. Anchor Motor Freight

Claimant, a truck driver for Anchor Motor Freight since 1969 and owner of a construction business since 1973, injured his back in 1976. A dispute arose regarding the calculation of his average weekly wage for workers' compensation, with claimant advocating for the "200 multiple" method under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3). Anchor Motor Freight argued against this, citing claimant's voluntary limitation of employment due to his construction business. The Workers’ Compensation Board and the appellate court affirmed that claimant voluntarily limited his employment with Anchor, thus his average weekly wage should be based on actual earnings rather than the 200 multiple method. The court further clarified that conflicting dual employments where one limits availability for the other constitutes a voluntary limitation.

Average Weekly Wage CalculationVoluntary Limitation of EmploymentDual Employment ConflictWorkers' Compensation Law § 14(3)Disability ApportionmentPart-Time EmploymentConcurrent EmploymentEmployer Payroll RecordsUnion Rules ImpactJudicial Affirmation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 1994

Comer v. Titan Tool, Inc.

Plaintiffs Delores Comer and Patricia Edelson, as personal representatives of Michael Comer's estate, brought a diversity action for wrongful death against Titan Tool, Inc., the manufacturer of a paint sprayer Michael Comer was using when he died. Titan Tool, Inc. then filed a third-party complaint seeking contribution from Rock & Waterscape Systems, Inc. (R&W), Comer's employer. R&W moved for summary judgment, arguing that under Florida workers’ compensation law, a death benefit payment to Delores Comer barred further liability. The court, applying New York's choice of law rules and interest analysis, found no basis for applying Florida law as R&W is a California domiciliary. The court denied R&W's motion for summary judgment, stating that triable issues remained regarding the choice of law question between New York and California, as Florida law could not control the case.

wrongful deathsummary judgmentchoice of lawdiversity jurisdictionworkers' compensationdomicileloss allocationtort lawemployer liabilityproduct liability
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 669 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