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. ADJ473373 (ANA 0406381)
Regular
Feb 10, 2012

FERNANDO GUTIERREZ vs. SOCAL FRAMING aka BMHC; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, administered by ESIS, INC.

This case concerns applicant's claim for extended temporary disability (TD) benefits beyond 104 weeks due to a left eye injury. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's denial of the "amputation" exception, ruling that the surgical removal of an eye does not fit the statutory definition. However, the Board remanded the case for further development of the record on the "high-velocity eye injury" exception, as the velocity and force of the object that struck the applicant's eye were unclear. The applicant's Petition for Removal was dismissed as reconsideration was the appropriate remedy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFernando GutierrezSoCal FramingBMHCACE American InsuranceESISInc.ADJ473373ANA 0406381Opinion and Decision
References
1
Case No. VNO 0504722
Regular
Feb 13, 2008

FRANCK PETER vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; TPA: CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES

This case concerns a police officer injured in the line of duty, who sought further temporary disability benefits beyond the 104 weeks already paid. The applicant argued that "Injured on Duty" pay should not count towards the statutory limit, and that an exception for high-velocity eye injuries should apply. The Board denied reconsideration, holding that "Injured on Duty" pay is included within the 104-week limit under Labor Code section 4656, citing precedent, and found no evidence of a high-velocity eye injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPolice OfficerTemporary Disability IndemnityInjured on Duty (IOD)Los Angeles Administrative Code Section 4.177Labor Code Section 4656Radesky v. City of Los AngelesHigh-Velocity Eye Injury ExceptionMedical Evidence
References
3
Case No. ADJ665716
Regular
Jun 15, 2009

JUDD GLOVER vs. ACCU CONSTRUCTION, FIRST COMP OMAHA

This case concerns an applicant who sustained a high-velocity eye injury on June 8, 2006, along with injuries to his head, brain, and psyche. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding of a high-velocity eye injury and ongoing temporary total disability. However, the Board remanded the case to the trial level for further development of the record to determine if the eye injury contributes to the applicant's continuing temporary disability, which is necessary for extended benefits under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(F). Issues of additional temporary disability indemnity and attorney's fees were deferred pending this determination.

High-velocity eye injuryLabor Code section 4656Temporary total disabilityReconsiderationFindings & AwardCompensable consequenceNexusAmputation exceptionCruz v. Mercedes-BenzFoster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
17
Case No. ADJ11111709
Regular
Sep 19, 2018

STEVEN GONZALES vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., SERVICEMASTER ANYTIME, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) award of temporary disability benefits exceeding the 104-week cap. The Board found sufficient evidence, including applicant's testimony, to establish a "high velocity eye injury" under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(F). The Board reasoned that a reasonable inference could be drawn from the applicant's description of hitting a nail that splintered, striking his eye at high velocity. Defendant's arguments regarding the applicant's inability to identify the object or its speed, and a post-trial QME report, were rejected.

High velocity eye injuryLabor Code section 4656(c)(3)(F)Temporary disability indemnity104 week capTemporarily totally disabledTemporarily partially disabledPetition for reconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJQME report
References
0
Case No. ADJ7650259
Regular
Aug 20, 2012

DARA HANRAHAN vs. CALIFORNIA HORSEMEN'S ALLIANCE, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, CHARTIS INSURANCE

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant, Dara Hanrahan, sustained an injury to her eye while working as an exercise rider. The defendant argued the injury did not qualify as "high-velocity" under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(F) due to a lack of velocity evidence. Medical reports documented a traumatic blowout fracture of the left orbit with significant soft tissue entrapment and residual symptoms, including diplopia and ongoing facial pain. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the injury qualified for extended temporary disability benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDara HanrahanCalifornia Horsemen's AllianceInsurance Company of the State of PennsylvaniaChartis InsuranceADJ7650259Oakland District OfficePetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1990

Paone v. Westwood Village

This case involves an appeal concerning a personal injury action at a construction site. The injured worker and his wife initially sued Westwood Village (owner) and Holiday Management Associates, Inc. (general contractor). Westwood and Holiday then filed third-party complaints against Colonial Mechanical Co. (subcontractor) and High Tech Heating Co. (subcontractor and employer of the injured plaintiff). The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted summary judgment to Colonial and High Tech, dismissing the third-party complaints. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that Colonial and High Tech had no control over the work that caused the injury, thus absolving them of liability under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. The court emphasized that the duty to provide a safe workplace rests with the party having authority to control the injury-producing activity, in this instance, Holiday as the general contractor.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionLabor LawWorkplace SafetyOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityControl of Work Site
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Darowski v. High Meadow Cooperative No. 1

Joseph Darowski initiated a personal injury lawsuit against High Meadow Cooperative No. 1 and Anker Management Corporation for injuries sustained during asbestos removal. High Meadow and Anker subsequently filed a third-party action against Darowski's employer, Asbestos Industries of America, Inc. (AIA), seeking defense and indemnification due to a contract breach regarding liability insurance. AIA appealed an order that denied its motion to compel further discovery and granted summary judgment to High Meadow and Anker, declaring AIA's duty to defend and indemnify. The appellate court modified the order, ruling that AIA's motion to depose High Meadow and Anker representatives should be granted, but otherwise affirmed the summary judgment against AIA due to its failure to procure adequate insurance. The decision also clarified that a recent 1996 amendment to the Workers' Compensation Law, limiting third-party actions against employers, would not apply retroactively to this pending case.

Asbestos ExposurePersonal Injury DamagesThird-Party IndemnificationDuty to DefendSummary Judgment AppealDiscovery DisputeDeposition OrderBreach of ContractLiability Insurance PolicyWorkers' Compensation Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kessler v. Fairmont Theater, Inc.

Claimant, employed for two days in 1986 as a projectionist, sought workers' compensation benefits for psychiatric injury and eye injury. He alleged harassment from his employer and supervisor caused a nervous breakdown, and projector light injured his eyes. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge dismissed the psychiatric injury claim but found prima facie evidence for vision impairment, remitting that part for further development. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently ruled against the psychiatric trauma claim, a decision supported by employer and supervisor testimony denying harassment and claimant's psychiatrist confirming prior psychiatric issues. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was based on substantial evidence and that issues of credibility are within the Board's purview.

Psychiatric InjuryNervous BreakdownEye InjuryEmployment TerminationIntoxicationHarassmentCredibilitySubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Xaverian High School

This case involves an appeal by T. Moriarty & Sons, Inc., a general contractor, from orders of the Supreme Court, Bungs County. The initial orders granted partial summary judgment against Moriarty under Labor Law § 240 (1) for personal injuries, awarded common-law indemnification to Xaverian High School and Leon D. DeMatteis Construction Corp. against Moriarty, and dismissed Moriarty's cross-claim for contractual indemnification against Patsy Strocchia Sons Iron Work, Inc. Additionally, Moriarty appealed the dismissal of its third-party complaint against the plaintiff's employer, All Boro Construction. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's orders, finding Moriarty liable for failing to provide safety devices, upholding common-law indemnification due to lack of supervision by other defendants, and dismissing contractual indemnification claims based on violations of General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. Furthermore, the court confirmed the dismissal of the third-party complaint against All Boro Construction under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and for lack of a written contract.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationWorkers' CompensationGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 1998

High View Fund, L.P. v. Hall

Plaintiffs, The High View Fund, L.P. and The High View Fund, filed an Amended Complaint asserting claims against E. William Hall and Karen W. Hall for violations of federal securities laws, fraudulent inducement, Delaware Blue Sky laws, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of contract. The claims stem from the plaintiffs' $1 million investment in United Golf Properties, Inc. and the defendants' alleged misuse of the company's assets and misrepresentations in an Offering Memorandum. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court, presided over by District Judge Scheindlin, granted dismissal for the federal securities law claims and common law fraud claims, allowing leave to amend. Additionally, the conversion and breach of contract claims were dismissed with prejudice. However, the motion to dismiss was denied for the Delaware Blue Sky law claims, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment claims.

Securities FraudMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentConversionBreach of ContractDelaware Blue Sky LawInvestment Fraud
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 13,381 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