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. SAC 304435
Regular
Oct 09, 2007

Raymond Phillips vs. California Department of Health Services, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant seeking reconsideration of a $50\%$ permanent disability award, arguing for $100\%$ due to insufficient proof of overlap with a prior injury. The defendant also sought reconsideration, contesting the disability rating and dollar amount of the award. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct the dollar amount, affirming the $50\%$ apportionment, the $15\%$ attorney fee, and the defendant's burden of proof for apportionment.

ApportionmentPermanent DisabilityReconsiderationFindings and AwardQualified Medical EvaluatorsLabor Code section 4664Permanent partial disabilityAttorney feesComplex Regional Pain SyndromePeroneal nerve
References
1
Case No. ADJ4702650 (MON 0094741), ADJ1144686 (MON 0124794)
Regular
2012-2011

ANA SAMI vs. HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board partially granted reconsideration, reversing most penalties for unreasonable delay and sanctions against the applicant's attorney, finding insufficient evidence for these claims. However, they affirmed the WCJ's finding of unreasonable delay regarding Weight Watchers coupons, deferring the penalty amount for further determination. The Board also affirmed that the applicant's attorney is entitled to fees for enforcing the medical treatment award related to the coupons. The matter was returned for further proceedings on the penalty amount and attorney's fees.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardPenaltiesSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Labor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5814.5Unreasonable DelayMedical Treatment
References
1
Case No. ADJ9826959
Regular
Dec 21, 2017

EDDIE JOHNSON vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award, affirming the finding of industrial injury to the applicant's left wrist. While the defendant argued the medical evidence was insufficient, the Board adopted the WCJ's report which recommended denial of that claim. However, the Board amended the award to correct a clerical error in the Permanent Partial Disability amount, adjusting it from $50,170.00 to $52,200.00. Consequently, the applicant's total PPD award was corrected to the accurate statutory amount.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Partial DisabilityQualified Medical EvaluatorAMA GuidelinesClerical ErrorReport and RecommendationDecision After ReconsiderationParole OfficerCalifornia Department of Corrections
References
0
Case No. 08cvl010, 08cvl751
Regular Panel Decision

Ventimiglia v. Tishman Speyer Archstone-Smith Westbury, L.P.

This case involves class actions filed by former tenants against their landlord, Archstone Westbury, due to water intrusion and mold issues requiring them to vacate their apartments. Several actions, including the Ventimiglia Action and the In re Archstone Westbury Tenant Litigation, were removed to federal court by the defendants under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The plaintiffs moved to remand these cases back to state court, arguing a lack of federal jurisdiction due to insufficient amount in controversy and minimal diversity. The court found that the defendants had established the $5 million amount in controversy, but failed to prove minimal diversity. Ultimately, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the cases to the New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, concluding that federal jurisdiction was lacking because Archstone Westbury was deemed a citizen of New York, thus destroying minimal diversity with the New York plaintiff class.

Class Action Fairness ActMinimal DiversityAmount in ControversyPrincipal Place of BusinessCorporate CitizenshipFederal JurisdictionRemand MotionTenant LitigationMold ContaminationProperty Damage
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2000

Tevdorachvili v. Chase Manhattan Bank

Plaintiff Nikolai Tevdorachvili sued Chase Manhattan Bank, alleging unauthorized wire transfers amounting to $157,000 from his checking account in August 1998, claiming forgery and lack of knowledge. He brought suit against Chase for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of New York Banking Law § 676, breach of implied duties of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, negligence, and gross negligence. Defendant Chase moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, insufficiency of service of process, and failure to state a claim. The court denied Chase's motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for insufficiency of service, finding plaintiff to be an alien for diversity jurisdiction and exercising discretion to waive the 120-day service rule. However, the court granted Chase's motion to dismiss all causes of action except for the breach of contract claim, finding no independent basis for the other claims under New York law.

Wire Transfer FraudBreach of ContractSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionService of ProcessMotion to DismissFiduciary DutyNew York Banking LawConsequential DamagesDeclaratory Judgment
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1991

C.D.S. Diversified, Inc. v. Franchise Finance Corp. of America

Plaintiff C.D.S. Diversified, Inc. sued Ticor Title Insurance Company, FFCA/IIP 1985 Property Company, and United Guaranty Insurance Company (later dismissed) for claims including wrongful termination, conversion, and breach of contract, based on diversity jurisdiction. The dispute arose from a sale/leaseback agreement where CDS deposited $36,000 in escrow with Ticor, which was subsequently released to FFCA after CDS defaulted on rent. Ticor moved to dismiss the $36,000 conversion claim against it, arguing that the amount in controversy did not meet the federal jurisdictional threshold. The Court, presided over by District Judge Spatt, reviewed principles of pendent-party jurisdiction, referencing Supreme Court cases like Finley v. United States, and concluded it lacked the power to exercise jurisdiction over the claim against Ticor given the insufficient amount in controversy in a diversity action. Consequently, Ticor's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was granted.

Pendent-Party JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionAmount in ControversyFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3)Supplemental JurisdictionJudicial Improvements Act of 1990Escrow Agent LiabilityConversion Claim
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibbs v. EI DuPont De Nemours & Co., Inc.

This case involves former employees of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company in Niagara Falls, New York, who developed bladder cancer due to alleged exposure to orthotoluidine and aniline manufactured by the defendants. Plaintiffs, including Harry Gibbs, Robert Bailey, Anthony D’Orazio, and William Mooney, seek to certify a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) for a court-administered medical monitoring fund. Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting mootness, lack of a recognized cause of action for medical monitoring under New York law, and insufficient amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding a factual dispute regarding mootness, concluding that a cause of action for medical monitoring is viable in New York, and determining that the value of the injunctive relief sought met the jurisdictional amount. While the court found a medical monitoring fund appropriate for Rule 23(b)(2) class actions, it deferred the final decision on class certification pending further briefing and potential discovery on the Rule 23(a) threshold requirements.

Bladder CancerToxic TortChemical ExposureMedical MonitoringClass Action LawsuitRule 23(b)(2)Negligence ClaimsProduct LiabilityDiversity JurisdictionNew York Tort Law
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 1980

Wernham v. Moore

The plaintiff, an unnamed former "permanent employee" of the Episcopal Mission Society (Society), was terminated in 1978 for allegedly leaving a group home unattended. The plaintiff claims the dismissal was without just cause, arguing he was on authorized leave, and that the Society failed to follow its own personnel manual procedures requiring written warnings and meetings for non-major violations. A key contention is that the Society's actions constitute "State action" due to its compliance with Department of Social Services regulations (18 NYCRR 441.4), which would subject it to due process requirements. The court found that while the Society is regulated, a factual question remains regarding a "significant nexus" for State action, which cannot be resolved solely on a motion to dismiss. The plaintiff also suggested the manuals represented a bilateral agreement, but the complaint lacked specificity on this point. Ultimately, the Supreme Court's order affirming the motion to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency was affirmed.

Employment TerminationState Action DoctrineDue ProcessPersonnel ManualsDismissal ProceduresDepartment of Social Services RegulationsRegulatory ComplianceMotion to DismissLegal SufficiencyAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prentice v. Levy

Plaintiff sustained a work-related cervical spine injury in 1998 and underwent surgery by defendant Dr. Walter J. Levy in 1999. After the first surgery failed and a second surgery in 2002 to remove loosened hardware, plaintiff settled a medical malpractice action against Levy for $400,000. The self-insured employer, Tops, Inc., and its administrator, MAC Risk Management, as "the carrier," asserted a workers' compensation lien against the settlement. The Supreme Court provisionally set the lien at $22,442.91 and appointed a referee to determine the final lien and offset amounts, with the carrier bearing the costs. The appellate court affirmed the order, ruling that the interim lien was "without prejudice" and the referee's hearing scope was sufficient to conduct a comprehensive evidentiary hearing, thus causing no prejudice to the carrier.

Workers' Compensation LienMedical MalpracticeSettlement LienInterim LienWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewReferee AppointmentLien EstablishmentOffset PaymentsEvidentiary Hearing
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 1975

McIntyre v. Bakers For A Democratic Union

This case involves an appeal from an order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss a libel complaint. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the motion to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency or for summary judgment, and also denied dismissal against defendant Caprio for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court modified the order, dismissing the action against Caprio due to lack of jurisdiction, as he was served in New Jersey and had no New York ties. The court otherwise affirmed the denial of dismissal, finding that the subject matter of the allegedly false and indiscriminately distributed pamphlets, viewed in context of opposing affidavits, was sufficient to raise a triable issue as to actual malice. Justice Murphy dissented in part, arguing for dismissal against all appellants, asserting the leaflet targeted union officers, not the union, and that the alleged defamation arose from an intraunion dispute protected by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. He further contended that plaintiffs failed to show actual malice with convincing clarity, as required by New York Times Co. v Sullivan.

LibelDefamationJurisdictionSummary JudgmentLabor LawUnion DisputeActual MaliceFirst AmendmentCPLRUS Code
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,309 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