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. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. ADJ8211363
Regular
Sep 23, 2014

LUIS GONZALES vs. ROBERT HEELY CONSTRUCTION, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an award finding cumulative trauma injury to the applicant's lungs from Valley Fever. The WCJ reserved jurisdiction over final permanent disability, deeming the disease insidious and potentially reoccurring, despite the applicant's current stable condition. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, citing medical evidence of potential relapse and the precedent allowing jurisdiction reservation for insidious progressive diseases. A dissenting opinion argued the medical evidence did not support classifying Valley Fever as insidious and progressive in this case, and thus jurisdiction should not have been reserved beyond the statutory limit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardcumulative trauma injuryValley Fevercoccidioidomycosisinsidious progressive diseasepermanent disabilityreservation of jurisdictionAgreed Medical Examiner
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2000

Ramnarine v. Memorial Center for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jagdeo Ramnarine, an employee of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, suffered a laceration at the Memorial Center for Cancer and Allied Diseases. He subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit. The defendant, Memorial Center, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as both the Center and the Hospital operate as a single integrated employer despite their separate legal entities. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant. The court found substantial evidence supporting the integrated employer argument, thereby limiting the plaintiff's remedy to workers' compensation benefits and dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against the defendant.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityIntegrated Employer DoctrineSummary Judgment ReversalNegligence ClaimCross Claims DismissedCorporate Alter EgoCommon ControlBronx CountyAppellate DivisionLabor Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elaine W. v. Joint Diseases North General Hospital, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including Elaine W., sued Joint Diseases North General Hospital for unlawful sexual discrimination due to its policy of excluding pregnant women from its drug detoxification program. The hospital defended its blanket exclusion on medical grounds, citing a lack of specialized equipment, obstetricians, and licensing for obstetrical care. After conflicting rulings in lower courts, with the Appellate Division siding with the hospital, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision. The Court ruled that the hospital must prove its blanket exclusion is medically warranted at trial, rejecting the idea that a mere medical explanation, when disputed, validates a discriminatory policy. The case emphasizes that distinctions based on pregnancy constitute sexual discrimination under New York's Human Rights Law, requiring individual assessment unless a complete medical impossibility of safe treatment is demonstrated.

Sexual DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationDrug Detoxification ProgramHospital PolicyMedical JustificationHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentBurden of Proof
References
11
Case No. Index No. 161136/17 Appeal No. 15141 Case No. 2021-02236
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2022

Quiroz v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jose Alfonso Perez Quiroz, a construction worker, sustained injuries after falling from an unstable scaffold at a site managed by Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases and general contractor Turner Construction Company. He initiated legal action under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting Quiroz's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), finding the unsecured scaffold to be a proximate cause of his fall. The appellate court subsequently dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim as academic.

Construction AccidentScaffold FallLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment AppealPlaintiff LiabilityDefendant LiabilityProximate CausationRecalcitrant Worker Defense
References
17
Case No. ADJ6836868
Regular
Feb 03, 2012

STEPHEN SEAVELLO vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

This case concerns a deputy sheriff diagnosed with skin cancer, with a presumption that it arose from his employment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed the administrative law judge's finding that the skin cancer was an "insidious disease process" and the subsequent reservation of jurisdiction over permanent disability. The Board determined that the applicant's condition was found to be permanent and stationary, and not a progressive insidious disease, thus precluding jurisdiction beyond the statutory five-year limit for amendments. Consequently, the original award of 4% permanent disability and need for future medical treatment was reinstated, but without the reservation of jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardStephen SeavelloCounty of San DiegoSkin CancerDeputy SheriffPermanent DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentInsidious Disease ProcessReservation of JurisdictionLabor Code Section 5804
References
8
Case No. ADJ2927671 (SAC 0293121)
Regular
Apr 18, 2012

JAYNA POPOVICH vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant diagnosed with Hepatitis C, an insidious disease, who filed a workers' compensation claim. A 2002 stipulation extended the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's (WCAB) jurisdiction beyond five years for an insidious disease, but was interpreted by the WCAB to apply only to permanent disability. The Court of Appeal annulled the WCAB's denial of temporary disability benefits, holding the applicant suffered no disability until 2010, thus the statute of limitations began to run then. Consequently, the WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and returned the case for further proceedings on the merits of the temporary disability claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemittiturCourt of AppealAnnulledOrder Denying ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeTemporary Disability BenefitsJurisdictionDate of Injury
References
5
Case No. ADJ1232764
Regular
Mar 24, 2009

ALEXANDRA CULLEN-WRIGHT vs. CUMMINS & WHITE, LLP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant sought reconsideration of a WCAB decision denying jurisdiction to amend a prior award, arguing her RSD constitutes an insidious, progressive disease exempting it from the five-year statute of limitations. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate her RSD met the criteria for an insidious, progressive disease as defined in *General Foundry Service v. WCAB*. Furthermore, the Board noted the original decision did not reserve jurisdiction and no timely petition to reopen was filed to address this possibility. Therefore, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to amend the award over five years post-injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 5804cumulative injurycomplex regional pain syndromeRSDagreed medical examinersubstantial evidencepermanent and stationarysympathetic ganglion blockpetition to set aside
References
8
Case No. ADJ2428853
Regular
Jun 15, 2009

MICHAEL B. BERTHIAUME vs. CITY OF CHULA VISTA

This case involves a fire captain claiming a cumulative trauma skin cancer injury. The defendant employer contests the $39\%$ permanent disability award, arguing the AMA Guides were misapplied and the rating inequitably reflects the applicant's functional ability. The employer also challenges the WCJ's refusal to apportion prior disability and the finding of an "insidious disease" for ongoing jurisdiction. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow the defendant to argue the AMA Guides rating is an inaccurate measure of disability under *Almaraz/Guzman*. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, with the WCJ to address the apportionment and insidious disease issues in a new decision.

WCABCity of Chula Vistacumulative traumaskin cancerpermanent disabilityapportionmentLabor Code section 4663Labor Code section 4664AMA GuidesAgreed Medical Examiner
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2002

Claim of Gandolfo v. MTK Electronics

Claimant, employed by MTK Electronics, developed Hodgkin’s disease due to exposure to trichloroethylene and trichloroethane. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found a causally related occupational disease and awarded benefits, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board emphasized the claimant's treating physician's expert testimony, which established a link between the disease and chemical exposure at work. The employer's requests for reconsideration or full Board review were denied. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the causal link between claimant's employment and her occupational disease.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseHodgkin's DiseaseChemical ExposureTrichloroethyleneTrichloroethaneCausalityExpert TestimonyMedical OpinionBoard Review
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 590 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