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

Matter of Castler v. National Grid

Claimant sustained a low back injury in 2006, receiving workers' compensation benefits. In 2013, chiropractor Douglas Van Vorst treated him for two exacerbations after incidents involving shoveling snow and lifting a kayak. The employer's carrier disputed the medical bills, arguing the treatments did not comply with Workers’ Compensation Board Medical Treatment Guidelines (MTG). A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially ruled in favor of the medical provider, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding insufficient documentation for the exacerbation. On appeal, the court examined the documentation and found that Van Vorst adequately detailed how the exacerbations occurred, objective changes from baseline, expected treatments, and claimant's response, satisfying the MTG requirements. The court concluded that the Board’s finding lacked substantial evidence and therefore reversed the Board's decision, remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Medical Treatment GuidelinesExacerbation of InjuryLow Back InjuryChiropractic TreatmentObjective Functional ImprovementVariance Request12 NYCRR 324.212 NYCRR 324.3Substantial EvidenceRemittal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Southern & Eastern District Asbestos Litigation

This document addresses several in limine motions concerning the admissibility of various documents in an asbestos action against defendants Eagle-Picher and Owens-Corning Fiberglas. The plaintiff sought to introduce these documents to demonstrate that the defendants failed to heed warnings about asbestos hazards, thereby warranting punitive damages. The court granted Eagle-Picher's motion to exclude the Bureau of Mines documents, citing a lack of foreseeability regarding end-user danger in 1932. However, it denied Eagle-Picher's motions to exclude the Spencer Memorandum (and related Bockstahler testimony), the Aber Report, and the Harrington Letter, finding sufficient indication that these documents conveyed warnings to authorized personnel. The court also granted Owens-Corning Fiberglas' motion to exclude the Saranac Lake Study documents due to insufficient evidence of their receipt by the defendant.

Asbestos LitigationIn Limine MotionsEvidence AdmissibilityPunitive DamagesCorporate KnowledgeAttorney-Client PrivilegeFraud on the CourtOccupational HazardsWarning DocumentsExpert Testimony
References
2
Case No. ADJ-4279077 (SDO 0317244)
Regular
Jun 09, 2016

TINA BARONI vs. CITY OF OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Decision After Removal ordering the striking of three sets of documents from the EAMS record. These documents pertained to San Diego Superior Court Case Number 37-2016-00006537-CU-IC-CTL and were submitted without objection. The WCAB previously issued a Notice of Intention to Strike these documents, stating they would be removed unless good cause to the contrary was shown. No objections were received from the parties or the identified attorneys.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalStriking DocumentsEAMS recordCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationReliance National Indemnity CompanyLiquidationSan Diego Superior CourtObjectionGood Cause
References
1
Case No. ADJ4279077 (SDO 0317244)
Regular
May 05, 2018

TINA BARONI vs. CITY OF OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has removed this case for the stated intention to strike documents filed by attorney Adrienne D. Cohen, who is not of record. These documents, which include notices related to a San Diego Superior Court case and a petition for writ of prohibition, are deemed irrelevant and improperly filed. The WCAB asserts that California Superior Courts lack jurisdiction over the WCAB and that CIGA failed to utilize proper procedural remedies. The WCAB will strike the documents unless good cause is shown to the contrary within ten days.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalStriking DocumentsEAMS RecordCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationReliance National Indemnity CompanyCity of OceansideAdrienne D. CohenNotice of Related CaseWrit of Prohibition
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dolin, Thomas & Solomon LLP v. United States Department of Labor

The law firm Dolin, Thomas & Solomon, LLP, proceeding pro se, initiated this action against the United States Department of Labor (DOL) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), alleging wrongful withholding of documents. These documents pertained to DOL Wage and Hour Division Opinion Letters FLSA 2007-1, FLSA 2007-2, and FLSA 2007-4, along with related requests and internal communications. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court partially granted and partially denied both motions, ordering the DOL to produce specific categories of documents, such as enclosure letters, status updates, and generalized procedural communications, for which privilege claims were deemed insufficient. However, the court upheld the DOL's right to withhold draft opinion letters and communications containing specific legal advice, recognizing these as protected by deliberative process and attorney-client privileges.

FOIAFreedom of Information ActSummary JudgmentDeliberative Process PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegeDocument DisclosureAgency RecordsDOL Opinion LettersGovernment TransparencyExemptions
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Meadows, LLC

The petitioner, Bette & Cring, LLC, sought an order under Lien Law article 3-A to examine the trust books and records of Brandle Meadows, LLC concerning the "Brandle Meadows — Senior Condominium Community" project. This demand followed an initial provision of a verified statement of trust accounts, which the petitioner deemed insufficient, requesting examination of underlying documentation. The core dispute revolved around the scope of examination permitted under Lien Law § 76, specifically whether it includes underlying documents like cancelled checks and invoices beyond just the primary trust books. The court clarified that while trust books should detail required information per Lien Law § 75, if they lack sufficient detail, beneficiaries are entitled to examine underlying documentation. Finding a discrepancy in the records provided during a September 2010 examination, the court granted the petition, directing the respondent to produce complete trust books or records as mandated by Lien Law § 75 within 10 days.

Lien LawTrust FundsBooks and Records ExaminationStatutory InterpretationMechanic's LienVerified StatementArticle 3-ABeneficiary RightsScope of ExaminationFiduciary Duty
References
6
Case No. 01-14-00687-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2015

the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston, Inc., the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston Education Foundation, Dan Parsons, Chris Church, Church Enterprises, Inc., Gary Milleson, Ronald N. McMillan, D' Artagnan Bebel, Mark Goldie, Cha v. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC

This document contains two responses from John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. The primary document, filed March 13, 2015, is a response to the Appellants' (Better Business Bureau et al.) objections to consolidation of related cases for submission. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC (Appellees) advocate for consolidation, asserting it would serve justice and efficiency by resolving all issues in a single judgment and prevent further confusion arising from separate appeals. The embedded document, filed June 12, 2014, is a response and objection to the Better Business Bureau's motion for attorneys' fees, court costs, expenses, and sanctions. John Moore argues that the requested fees are not reasonable or necessary, that the issue of reasonableness requires a jury trial, and that the supporting evidence (Elkin Affidavit and invoices) is legally insufficient and conclusory. Furthermore, John Moore contends that awarding fees at this stage would be neither just nor equitable, given the ongoing viable claims, and requests the court to deny the motion for fees, sustain their objections, grant their motion to consolidate, and compel discovery responses.

LitigationAttorney FeesCase ConsolidationAnti-SLAPP StatuteTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJury TrialEvidence ObjectionsDiscovery DisputesLegal Fees Reasonableness
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Engstrum & Nourse-Stolte v. E.C. Ernst, Inc. (In re E.C. Ernst, Inc.)

E.C. Ernst, Inc. (Ernst), a debtor-in-possession in a Chapter XI bankruptcy proceeding, entered into a subcontract with Engstrom & Nourse-Stolte (ENS) for electrical work. After Ernst filed for bankruptcy, a Supplemental Agreement allowed Ernst to continue the project. ENS later filed a Proof of Claim for expenses, which Ernst moved to expunge or allow only as a general unsecured claim. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment regarding the priority of ENS's claim and the interpretation of their agreements. Additionally, Ernst sought to expunge ENS's claim for failure to produce documents. The court denied both motions for summary judgment, citing disputes over the intent behind the Supplemental Agreement and potential breach of contract, and directed ENS to comply with document production.

Bankruptcy ActChapter XI ReorganizationExecutory ContractsSummary JudgmentDebtor-in-PossessionSubcontract AgreementProof of ClaimPriority ClaimContract InterpretationDocument Production
References
13
Case No. ADJ8723834
Regular
Aug 08, 2013

DAVID LIPARI vs. BENNETT MOTOR EXPRESS, LLC, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

The Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's discovery order was not a final decision. However, the Board granted removal and rescinded the WCJ's order compelling discovery. This action was taken to ensure the defendant had proper due process, as they claimed insufficient notice of the discovery motion and insufficient time to respond. The Board also noted that the disputed employment status impacts the relevance of the requested documents, suggesting a priority conference on employment should be held first.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalDiscovery OrderSubpoena Duces TecumDue ProcessIndependent ContractorSubstitution of AttorneysMotion to CompelMedical Provider Network
References
5
Case No. ADJ711962 (SFO 0420092)ADJ2557776 (SFO 0390012)
Regular
Apr 04, 2017

EVELYN COTTON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision regarding industrial injuries and medical treatment reimbursements. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the findings of the workers' compensation judge. The applicant's claims regarding impaired concentration due to pain and medication, as well as disputes over document possession and reimbursement calculations, were found insufficient to warrant further review. The applicant was also admonished for violating procedural rules by attaching unnecessary documents to her petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryShoulder InjuryHand InjuryKnee InjuryWrist InjuryBack InjuryPsyche InjuryHypertension
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 5,034 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