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

Independent Ass'n of Publishers' Employees, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co.

Plaintiffs, the Independent Association of Publishers’ Employees, Inc. (IAPE) and ten Canadian employees, sued defendant Dow Jones & Company, Inc., alleging a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The plaintiffs claimed that Dow Jones violated its fiduciary obligations by changing the Profit-Sharing Retirement Plan's benefit allocation formula, which resulted in reduced benefits for Canadian employees due to currency conversion. Dow Jones argued it was not a fiduciary for this specific act or that the action was not a breach, asserting the right to amend plan contributions. The court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, found that Dow Jones's fiduciary duties under ERISA did not extend to the method of calculating employer contributions or modifying non-accrued benefits. The court concluded that both the Plan provisions and ERISA allowed prospective changes in contributions by the employer, and therefore, Dow Jones had not breached any fiduciary duty. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

ERISAFiduciary DutyProfit-Sharing PlanBenefit AllocationSummary JudgmentNon-Accrued BenefitsPlan AmendmentEmployer ContributionsCanadian EmployeesDistrict Court
References
5
Case No. ADJ8967361
Regular
Nov 26, 2014

FELIPE GARCIA (DECEASED) GUILLERMINA GARCIA (WIDOW) vs. SALVADOR GAYTAN dba G\&P AG MANAGEMENT CONTRACTORS, INC.; STAR INSURANCE, Adjusted by MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

This case involved a petition for reconsideration by the applicant in a workers' compensation matter where the deceased worker, Felipe Garcia, was initially found to be an employee but later deemed an independent contractor by the Appeals Board. The applicant argued the Board erred by disregarding the WCJ's credibility assessment and by not applying Labor Code section 2750.5 to unlicensed contractors. The Board denied the petition, finding no evidence the deceased worker was engaged in activities requiring a contractor's license under Business and Professions Code sections 7000 and 7026. Therefore, Labor Code section 2750.5 was inapplicable, and the prior decision finding the applicant an independent contractor was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent contractorEmployee statusReconsiderationLabor Code section 2750.5Contractors' State License LawBlew v. HornerGarza v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd.Rinaldi v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Unlicensed contractor
References
4
Case No. ADJ7271617
Regular
Aug 27, 2012

LEONARD KEY vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, CORVEL CORPORATION

This case involves applicant Leonard Key seeking workers' compensation benefits for an injury sustained while teaching a music production course. The defendant, Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE), contended that Key was an independent contractor and not an employee. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the trial judge's finding that Key was an employee, emphasizing LACOE's control over the means and manner of his work, despite an independent contractor agreement. Key lacked control over class schedules, room assignments, and was paid hourly, weighing against independent contractor status. Therefore, the WCAB found that LACOE failed to meet its burden to prove Key was an independent contractor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLeonard KeyLos Angeles County Office of EducationCorvel CorporationADJ7271617Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationWCJemployee statusindependent contractordirection and control
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union v. Bradley Cleaning Contractors, Inc.

This case involves Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (Union) petitioning to confirm an arbitration award against Bradley Cleaning Contractors, Inc. (Bradley). Bradley sought to vacate, remand, or stay the award's enforcement, arguing for deference to a pending NLRB unit clarification petition. The court, noting the NLRB's decision not to intervene, proceeded to address the merits. It found Bradley's challenges to the arbitrator's award, concerning damages for a period prior to the 1981 agreement and inclusion of pension and welfare fund contributions, to be meritless. The court concluded the arbitrator acted within the scope of the collective bargaining agreement, and therefore confirmed the award. Enforcement was stayed for ten days to allow Bradley to arrange collateral.

Arbitration AwardUnion DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActNLRB JurisdictionStay of EnforcementCollateral RequirementJudicial ReviewArbitration Confirmation
References
6
Case No. ADJ8453925
Regular
Feb 02, 2015

MARTHA HASSAN vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By INTERCARE INSURANCE

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits, with the primary dispute being her employment status as either an employee or an independent contractor. The defendant, County of Los Angeles, argued the applicant was an independent contractor, citing her ability to work for others and a contractual clause. However, the majority of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's findings that the applicant was an employee based on the County's right to control her work. A dissenting opinion argued that the applicant was an independent contractor due to her distinct occupation, skill, and control over the means of her work.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent ContractorEmployeeRight to ControlBorello factorsWCJPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactIndustrial InjuryCourt Interpreter
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. ADJ3481415 (ANA 0409015) ADJ6464516
Regular
May 02, 2009

MARTHA DIAZ vs. CLEANATION BUILDING MAINTENANCE, GRANITE STATE INSURANCE, AIG DOMESTIC CLAIMS, INC., PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY, ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Martha Diaz's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The administrative law judge (WCJ) found Diaz was an independent contractor, not an employee, and thus not entitled to workers' compensation benefits for her alleged industrial injuries. The Board agreed, finding that Diaz controlled her work hours and methods, was paid by the job, and operated her own cleaning service, consistent with independent contractor status. Even if a subcontract agreement was excluded, the evidence still supported the WCJ's independent contractor determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusLabor Code Section 3351Labor Code Section 3353Labor Code Section 3600(a)Borello TestControl TestSecondary IndiciaRight to Discharge
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 1980

In re the Claim of Caruso

This case concerns an appeal by Professional Data Services, Inc. from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The board affirmed an Administrative Law Judge's ruling that a claimant, who worked from home as a key punch operator for Professional Data Services, Inc., was an employee rather than an independent contractor, making her eligible for benefits. The employer provided equipment, controlled work distribution, and set deadlines, which were key factors in determining the employment relationship. The court rejected the employer's argument that a signed contract classifying the claimant as an independent contractor was binding, citing concerns about duress and the Industrial Commissioner's statutory authority to determine employment status under Labor Law § 597. The Appellate Division affirmed the board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the employer-employee relationship.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorUnemployment insurance benefitsLabor LawSubstantial evidenceContractual agreementDuressAdministrative Law JudgeAppeal Board decisionKey punch operator
References
2
Case No. ADJ8430282 ADJ8430286
Regular
Jun 20, 2014

GUADALUPE VALENZUELA vs. ALTRUIST HOMECARE SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, ESIS

This case concerns a caregiver, Guadalupe Valenzuela, who sustained industrial injuries while working for Altruist Homecare Services. Altruist sought to have Valenzuela classified as an independent contractor, arguing that Civil Code section 1812.5095 applied and exempted them from employer liability. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Altruist's petition, upholding the finding that Valenzuela was an employee. The Board found Altruist failed to meet all the statutory requirements for independent contractor status under the Civil Code and that Valenzuela's circumstances indicated an employer-employee relationship under the *Borello* factors. Specifically, Valenzuela's inability to freely renegotiate pay and her belief that Altruist could terminate her employment were critical to the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantFindings of Fact and AwardIndustrial InjuryLow BackLeft LegHome Care ServicesRight ElbowRight Arm
References
9
Case No. ADJ8799397
Regular
Jul 01, 2014

GABRIEL VASQUEZ vs. CEVA FREIGHT, LLC, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and found applicant Gabriel Vasquez was an employee of CEVA Freight, LLC, reversing the original finding that he was an independent contractor. The WCAB determined that CEVA Freight exerted significant control over Vasquez's work, dictating delivery routes, times, and requiring specific attire and truck branding. Factors such as the nature of the work being part of CEVA's core business and Vasquez's limited English proficiency and education further supported the conclusion that he was an employee, not an independent contractor. This decision overturns the administrative law judge's initial order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEmployee statusIndependent contractorControl of workBorello factorsDistinct occupationSkill requiredInstrumentalitiesMethod of paymentRegular business
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 22,357 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