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. SJO 0258641
Regular
May 19, 2008

JANICE M. DOUGLAS vs. COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ACE USA, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award of temporary disability indemnity. The Board found the applicant's termination for cause, specifically for sending inappropriate emails despite prior warnings, was tantamount to refusing suitable modified work. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to temporary disability benefits from her termination date until the date she was later found temporarily totally disabled.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityExpedited HearingAgreed Medical EvaluatorEmployee Counseling FormsFinal Written CounselingTermination of EmploymentInappropriate EmailsOdd Lot Doctrine
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hargett v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

David T. Hargett sued the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), its executives (Stanley Grill, David Ross, May Mcintosh), the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), and its employees (Ken Neal, James Harding, Jr.) for wrongful discharge based on civil rights violations, age discrimination, New York State Human Rights Law, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and breach of contract. Hargett, an African American male, was terminated from NYCTA in June 2004 after a female subordinate accused him of sending inappropriate emails, an accusation she later recanted claiming she was pressured by NYCTA management. The court, presided by Judge McMahon, granted in part and denied in part the NYCTA Defendants' motion to dismiss, specifically dismissing IIED, defamation, and breach of contract claims as time-barred or lacking legal merit. The MTA Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims was granted, as the MTA was not considered Hargett's employer and individual liability requirements were not met. The NYCTA Defendants' motion to strike certain paragraphs from the complaint was denied.

Wrongful TerminationAge Discrimination in Employment ActCivil Rights ViolationRacial DiscriminationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamation LawsuitBreach of Employment ContractMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsEmployment Discrimination
References
54
Case No. ADJ10321614
Regular
Nov 17, 2017

KURT SAALFELD vs. CITY OF TRACY

The Appeals Board denied applicant's Petition for Removal seeking a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. Applicant objected to defendant's letter to the QME via email, but defendant had previously informed applicant they do not accept email service. The Board found applicant's email objection improperly served as there was no agreement for electronic service. Therefore, the Board concluded that applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalFindings and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelLabor Code section 4062.3(b)Rule 10505service by emailobjection to QME letterpeace officer
References
2
Case No. ADJ8484829
Regular
Jun 12, 2018

MATTHEW DREVER vs. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Matthew Drever's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on August 24, 2016, which was well beyond the 25-day deadline following email service of the Findings and Order on June 3, 2016. The Board found no evidence of defective service, as the email was sent to the applicant's attorney's designated address. Therefore, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictional LimitDefective ServiceEmail ServiceEAMSFindings and OrderWCJ ReportSupplemental PleadingADJ8484829
References
4
Case No. ADJ10887226
Regular
Sep 12, 2018

Alma Ramirez vs. Jaguar Farm Labor Contracting, Inc., Star Insurance Company

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that a chiropractic QME panel was inappropriate. The Board granted reconsideration, finding the applicant's initial QME panel request was valid due to the employer's failure to provide proper notice of her rights when unrepresented. The Board determined that while chiropractors cannot perform surgery or prescribe medication, this does not inherently make them inappropriate QMEs for disputes concerning diagnosis, prognosis, or work status. Therefore, the Board amended the WCJ's findings to deem the chiropractic QME panel appropriate and ordered the parties to proceed with it.

QME panelchiropractic specialtyorthopedic specialtyMedical Unit determinationAdministrative Director RulesLabor Code 4062treating physician report objectionapplicant representationpermanent disabilitymedical evaluation
References
5
Case No. ADJ9244473
Regular
Jan 20, 2015

LILIA TAMAYO vs. SERRA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, COMPWEST INSURANCE

This case involves Lilia Tamayo's workers' compensation claim against Serra Manufacturing Corporation. The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) vacated a trial submission to develop the medical record, specifically ordering panels of Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs). The defendant sought removal, arguing this was an inappropriate method for record development. The Appeals Board denied removal, agreeing with the WCJ that the record needed development but finding the ordered method of seeking supplemental opinions from the treating physician inappropriate based on prior precedent. The Board affirmed the WCJ's order for further development, though it did not specify the exact procedure pending further action.

Petition for RemovalVacating SubmissionOrder for Further DevelopmentQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Orthopedic SurgeryPsychiatryIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryTrunk InjuryPsyche Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Roundtree

Claimant, a maintenance worker at a wholesale club, was terminated after being caught using an iPad at a leased kiosk to access inappropriate websites during his overnight shift, violating company policy. Initially denied unemployment benefits, this was overturned by an Administrative Law Judge, but subsequently reversed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found disqualifying misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that an employee's failure to comply with reasonable employer policies, detrimental to the employer's interest, constitutes misconduct. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's resolution of credibility regarding the claimant's denial of accessing inappropriate content.

Unemployment insuranceMisconductPolicy violationWorkplace misconductInternet use policyTerminationCredibility issueSubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewUnauthorized use
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burkes v. Enlarged City School District

Petitioner, an 11-year teacher's aide, was terminated by the Enlarged City School District of Troy following misconduct charges. The charges included 16 specifications of inappropriate physical contact, threats, teasing, embarrassing comments, and inappropriate conversations with students and staff. A hearing officer dismissed four charges but found sufficient evidence for the remaining twelve specifications. The Board of Education adopted the recommendation of termination, leading to this CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court found sufficient evidence to support the misconduct findings, rejecting due process claims and upholding the penalty of dismissal due to the pervasive and egregious nature of the conduct.

Employment TerminationTeacher MisconductSchool District DisciplineCPLR Article 78 ReviewDue Process ViolationInappropriate Student ContactWorkplace MisconductAdministrative DeterminationPublic Employee TerminationTeacher's Aide
References
5
Case No. ADJ10221687
Regular
Nov 13, 2020

LEONORE MUNOZ vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer in four sentences: The Appeals Board reversed a Workers' Compensation Judge's decision, finding that the applicant's psychiatric injury was not substantially caused by lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions. While the applicant experienced distress from work-related events, including a counseling memo and an email announcing a meeting, the Board determined that the email was not a "personnel action" under Labor Code section 3208.3(h). Therefore, the employer's defense that the injury stemmed solely from such actions failed, making the psychiatric injury compensable. The Board rescinded the prior order and substituted a finding that the injury is compensable and not barred by the personnel action defense.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPsychiatric InjuryGood Faith Personnel ActionLabor Code Section 3208.3(h)ReconsiderationCausationPQMEIndustrial StressorsCounseling MemoPersonnel Action
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Marian

This case addresses the interpretation of New York's stalking statute. The defendant was charged with stalking her former girlfriend by sending numerous messages, including to a work email address, and appearing unannounced at various locations. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of stalking under Penal Law § 120.45 (3), ruling that a person's work email address is not considered a "place of employment or business" as defined by the statute. Additionally, the court found other pleading defects for this specific count. However, the motion to dismiss the remaining charges, including falsely reporting an incident and stalking under Penal Law § 120.45 (2), was denied as these counts were deemed facially sufficient.

StalkingEmail StalkingPenal LawFacial SufficiencyStatutory InterpretationPlace of EmploymentCriminal Procedure LawMisdemeanorFormer GirlfriendHarassment
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 292 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