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

In re Jason B.

The case involves a petition by the Commissioner of Social Services to adjudicate 9-month-old Jason B. and his two siblings as neglected children. The respondent mother made threats to harm her children, stating she would "take the children with her" and asking "What do I have to do to get help, something stupid like dangling one of my kids over the ferry?". The court found that these threats, coupled with the mother's history of mental illness, including diagnoses of "Schizophrenia with Borderline Features" and "Major Depression, Recurrent with Psychotic Features", established an imminent danger to the children. The court ruled that evidence of present or past harm is not required when a parent exhibits a capacity to carry out serious threats, thereby adjudicating the children neglected. They were continued on remand to the Commissioner of Social Services pending a dispositional hearing.

Child NeglectParental ThreatsMental IllnessImminent DangerFamily Court ActChild ProtectionSchizophreniaMajor DepressionPreponderance of EvidenceRisk of Harm
References
8
Case No. ADJ8844834
Regular
Nov 05, 2018

HECTOR GARCIA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

Applicant sustained industrial injury as a truck driver in 2013, resulting in multiple body part injuries and traumatic brain injury. The employer sought to overturn the WCJ's finding that their Utilization Review (UR) determination for applicant's continued inpatient care was untimely. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the UR was indeed untimely under Labor Code section 4610(i) for failing to meet the 72-hour timeframe for concurrent review in cases of imminent health threats. Consequently, applicant's continued inpatient care at CNS was authorized.

Utilization ReviewLabor Code Section 4610(i)Concurrent ReviewTimelinessIndependent Medical ReviewInpatient CareCenter for Neuro SkillsRequest for AuthorizationPrimary Treating PhysicianMedical Treatment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kimberly H.

This derivative neglect proceeding concerns Kimberly H., a newborn infant whose older siblings were removed from their mother's home due to findings of excessive corporal punishment shortly before Kimberly's birth. The Family Court initially found Kimberly not to be at imminent risk and conditionally released her to her mother. However, the Appellate Court reversed this decision, citing the recent neglect findings regarding Kimberly's siblings and their continued placement in foster care. The court determined that protection from an established threat of harm must take precedence over infant-parent bonding. Consequently, Kimberly was remanded to the custody of the Commissioner of the petitioner agency pending a full fact-finding hearing.

Derivative neglectCorporal punishmentImminent riskChild removalFoster careParental rightsFamily Court ActAppellate DivisionChild protectionParental therapy
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Shenker

The defendants, Shenker and Djavadi, were charged with criminal trespass and obstructing governmental administration after attempting to prevent the City of New York from bulldozing Esperanza Garden on February 15, 2000. They sought to present a justification defense, arguing their actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm – the destruction of the garden. The People moved to preclude this defense. Justice Robert M. Stole, presiding over the case, granted the People's motion. The court found that the justification defense under Penal Law § 35.05 (2) was not applicable, as the defendants failed to demonstrate an imminent public injury comparable to threats to life or community safety, and did not pursue reasonable legal alternatives during the available time.

Justification DefenseCriminal TrespassObstructing Governmental AdministrationCommunity GardensEnvironmental ProtestPenal Law 35.05Choice of EvilsEmergency MeasureImminent Public InjuryLegal Alternatives
References
8
Case No. Davidson County Circuit Court No. 97C-55, C.A. No. 01A01-9712-CV-00690
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 1999

Mildred Johnson and Gary Johnson v. Charles T. Cantrell and Patricia Cantrell

Mildred and Gary Johnson appealed a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Charles T. and Patricia Cantrell. The case originated from an incident where Mildred Johnson, an employee, suffered a mini-stroke following a confrontational interaction with the Cantrells, who were landlords concerned about property removal. The Johnsons sued, alleging assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and later attempted to assert a negligence claim on appeal. The trial court found the Cantrells' actions insufficient to establish assault or outrageous conduct for emotional distress. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that the threats were not of imminent harm and the conduct, while upsetting, did not meet the high standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Summary JudgmentAssaultIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligenceAppellate ReviewTort LawCivil ProcedureFactual DisputeImminent HarmOutrageous Conduct
References
24
Case No. ADJ7148195
Regular
Jan 03, 2020

KARIN SMITH vs. MARIN GENERAL HOSPITAL, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

This case concerns defendant's petition for reconsideration of an award for applicant's back surgery. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, affirmed the award, and corrected a clerical error in the case number. The WCAB found that while an initial surgery request was denied via Utilization Review (UR) and Independent Medical Review (IMR), the applicant's treating physician later submitted a new request supported by documented changes in material facts, including new neurological symptoms and an MRI showing critical stenosis and potential cauda equina syndrome. Because the second request indicated an imminent and serious threat to the applicant's health and was based on new medical evidence, the 12-month UR decision validity period did not apply.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code Section 4610(k)Documented Change in ConditionLumbar Spine SurgeryNurseCauda Equina Syndrome
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rabe v. Dillard's, Inc.

Susan Rabe appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Dillard's Inc. Dillard's had filed a counterclaim for breach of contract after Rabe refused to honor a settlement agreement, claiming she entered it under duress. Rabe's defense was based on an alleged threat made by Dillard's counsel during mediation, specifically threatening to contact her worker's compensation carrier about a prior injury and "doctor shopping." The trial court granted summary judgment, ruling that Rabe's affidavit regarding the threat was inadmissible due to the confidentiality of mediation communications. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that without competent evidence of a threat, Rabe's affirmative defense of duress failed as a matter of law.

Summary JudgmentDuressSettlement AgreementBreach of ContractConfidentiality of MediationAppellate ReviewAffirmative DefenseEvidentiary RulesContract LawCivil Procedure
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hyster Co. v. Lawrence

Justice BASS dissents from the majority's decision, which concluded that Hyster had good cause to believe a suit was imminent during its investigation and conditionally granted a writ of mandamus. The dissenting opinion argues that the majority improperly substituted its discretion for that of the trial court, failing to adhere to the abuse of discretion standard appropriate for mandamus review. The dissent emphasizes that the trial judge was confronted with a close question regarding whether the impounding of parts, coupled with other circumstances, unambiguously constituted an "outward manifestation" of imminent litigation. Citing precedent from cases like *Flores*, *American Home Assurance Co. v. Cooper*, and *Stringer v. Eleventh Court of Appeals*, Justice BASS asserts that neither a worker's compensation claim, nor notification by claimant's attorney, nor severe injuries alone, signify imminent litigation. The dissent concludes that the trial court's decision, being within its discretion and not arbitrary or capricious, should have been upheld.

MandamusAbuse of DiscretionDiscoveryAnticipation of LitigationWorker's Compensation ClaimTrial Court DiscretionAppellate ReviewGood CauseEvidence BurdenDissenting Opinion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 1996

In re the Claim of Teeter

The claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. This stemmed from a 13-week suspension as a custodian after an arbitration found he directed racial comments and threats at a co-worker. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied benefits, relying on the arbitrator's findings. The court affirmed this decision, ruling that a suspension does not prevent benefit denial and that threats to a co-worker constitute disqualifying misconduct, which was supported by substantial evidence.

unemployment insurancemisconductracial commentsthreatssuspensionarbitrationbenefits denialcustodianappellate reviewsubstantial evidence
References
5
Case No. ADJ3891253 (SAC 0350473)
Regular
Jan 20, 2010

, MAURICIO CASTRO vs. , RODOLFO GUTIERREZ; ALLSTATE INSURANCE c/o SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal due to the assigned judge's reported threat to refer him to the District Attorney if he continued testifying. While the judge did not deny the threat, she stated it was to ensure attorneys observed the applicant's demeanor. The Board found this action created an appearance of bias and prejudiced the applicant's right to a fair hearing. Therefore, the case was transferred to a new judge to ensure substantial justice and an unbiased determination of the merits.

Petition for RemovalWCJ ThreatDistrict Attorney ReferralAppearance of BiasDue Process ViolationCode of Civil Procedure Section 641(f)Labor Code Section 5310Robbins v. Sharp HealthcareWCAB Rule 10452Disqualification
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 319 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