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. ADJ7329234; ADJ7432894; ADJ7434559; ADJ7433683
Regular
Dec 02, 2014

KATHY WASSON vs. COUNTY OF PLUMAS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the prior denial of industrial injury for psyche and heart claims. While applicant sustained a compensable psychiatric injury due to workplace events, compensation is barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(h) as it was substantially caused by good faith personnel actions. However, applicant's heart injury, presumed compensable under Labor Code section 3212, remains compensable as the presumption was not rebutted and section 3208.3(h) does not apply. Further proceedings will address the sleep disorder claim and other deferred issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy SheriffPsychiatric injuryHypertensionSleep dysfunctionGood faith personnel actionLabor Code section 3208.3(h)PresumptionLabor Code section 3212Heart trouble
References
24
Case No. ADJ9978575
Regular
Sep 02, 2016

TANYA VAYSER vs. TARZANA TREATMENT CENTERS, ADMINSURE

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim for psychiatric injury. The defendant sought reconsideration of a finding that the applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The defendant argued the injury was not supported by substantial medical evidence and was barred by Labor Code § 3208.3(h) as it was caused by lawful, good faith personnel actions. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found that the applicant's significant changes in work duties without adequate training constituted general working conditions, not specific personnel actions under § 3208.3(h). The Board affirmed the finding of injury AOE/COE, as the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof regarding the affirmative defense.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardTanya VayserTarzana Treatment CentersAdmisureADJ9978575Opinion and Order Denying Petition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderTemporary Total DisabilityInjury Arising Out of and Within the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)Psychiatric Injury
References
10
Case No. W2015-00796-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2015

Virginia H. Sanders v. Commissioner of Department of Labor and Workforce Development

Virginia H. Sanders appealed the denial of her unemployment compensation claim, stemming from her termination for alleged workplace misconduct at Baptist Memorial Hospital. Initially, the Department of Labor denied benefits, a decision reversed by the Appeals Tribunal. However, the Commissioner's Designee subsequently reversed the Tribunal, finding Sanders' actions constituted misconduct. The Chancery Court for Shelby County affirmed the Designee's decision. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals upheld the Chancery Court's ruling, concluding that substantial and material evidence supported the finding that Sanders' actions, including escalating a dispute and making a statement interpreted as a threat, violated hospital policy and constituted work-related misconduct, thereby disqualifying her from unemployment benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsWorkplace MisconductEmployee DischargeAppeals Court DecisionAdministrative Law ReviewSubstantial Evidence StandardEmployer Policy ViolationVerbal AltercationPro Se RepresentationTennessee Law
References
42
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. ADJ9571986
Regular
Feb 22, 2019

ANNE CHOU vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the apportionment of psychiatric permanent disability. The Board clarified that Labor Code section 3208.3(h) pertains to the causation of the injury itself, not the apportionment of permanent disability. Therefore, lawful nondiscriminatory personnel actions, which did not meet the 35% causation threshold for non-compensability, cannot be used to apportion permanent disability under Labor Code section 4663. Accordingly, the applicant's permanent disability was increased from 19% to 22%.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryGastrointestinal SystemPsycheHypertensionTemporary DisabilityPermanent Disability
References
0
Case No. ADJ4205101
Regular
Jul 23, 2013

SUSAN HECHT vs. WARNER BROTHERS, INC.

This case involved an applicant claiming an industrial injury to her psyche, digestive system, and head, stemming from a change in overtime policy. The defendant argued the psychological injury was non-compensable under Labor Code sections 3208.3(b)(2) and 3208.3(h), as it arose from a good faith personnel action. However, the Board affirmed the WCJ's award, adopting the WCJ's report which found the injury compensable despite the personnel action. The Board also ordered the matter returned to the WCJ to determine the reasonable value of medical treatment provided by lien claimants.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryPsycheDigestive SystemHeadSleep DisorderTemporary DisabilityEmployment Development DepartmentLien Claimants
References
0
Case No. ADJ10908110
Regular
Mar 06, 2019

SHAKE KHACHATRIAN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Legally Uninsured, Adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant's claim for psychiatric injury. The defendant did not deny liability within 90 days, creating a presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 5402(b). However, the Board held that this presumption does not preclude the defendant from presenting evidence to support a lawful, good faith personnel action defense under Labor Code section 3208.3(h). This defense is considered exempt from the 90-day investigatory limitation, allowing the defendant to present all competent evidence regardless of when it was obtained. The case is therefore returned to the trial level for a new decision on the merits of the personnel action defense.

Labor Code section 5402presumption of compensabilityLabor Code section 3208.3(h)good faith personnel actionreasonable diligencecumulative industrial injurypsychiatric injuryDWC-1 claim formsubstantial causejudicial interpretation
References
9
Case No. ADJ10280441
Regular
May 16, 2025

LUIS LOMELI vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, PERMISSIBLY SELF-INSURED

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed a May 2, 2023 Findings of Fact and Award, which found that applicant Luis Lomeli sustained an industrial psychiatric injury while employed by the County of Los Angeles. The defendant had sought reconsideration, contending errors in admitting a treating physician's report and not admitting a Labor Code section 4600 letter, and arguing the physician's report failed to address whether the injury was substantially caused by lawful personnel action. The WCAB, adopting the WCJ's report, concluded that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the affirmative defense under Labor Code § 3208.3(h) and that there was no denial of due process in admitting the challenged medical reports.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardAdjudication NumberIndustrial InjuryPsycheLabor Code 3208.3(h)Personnel ActionAffirmative DefensePreponderance of EvidenceFindings of Fact and AwardMedical Reporting
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02305 [216 AD3d 630]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2023

Lochan v. H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc.

Ashram Lochan sued H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc., 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, and Hassan Haghanegi for personal injuries sustained from falling off an unsecured ladder while painting, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company and, in effect, searched the record to award summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, denying the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the award of summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, finding it improperly searched the record. However, it affirmed the grant of summary judgment against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, concluding the plaintiff established a prima facie case and defendants failed to raise a triable issue. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, ruling they failed to establish the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, a recalcitrant worker, or a volunteer.

Ladder AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240(1)Sole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseUnsecured LadderConstruction Site SafetyWorker Fall
References
18
Case No. 02-11-00209-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2012

in the Interest of A.B. and H.B., Children

This case involves an appeal by D.B. (Father) against the termination of his parental rights to his children, A.B. and H.B., after a jury trial. This is the second time the case has been before the court, with the previous judgment also being reversed and remanded. The court finds the evidence factually insufficient to support the termination grounds under Texas Family Code sections 161.001(1)(D) and (E), which relate to knowingly placing or allowing children to remain in endangering conditions/surroundings, or engaging in endangering conduct. Specific allegations addressed include H.B.'s failure to thrive, Father's hostile behavior, and the condition of Father's homes. While the court affirms the legal sufficiency of the evidence for termination grounds and the children's best interest, it determines that the factual insufficiency for endangerment necessitates a reversal and remand for a new trial. The dissenting opinion argues that the en banc majority's opinion (A.B. 3) improperly contradicts prior rulings on factual sufficiency.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectPhysical AbuseFactual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyBest Interest of ChildDomestic ViolencePsychological EvaluationFoster CareTexas Family Law
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 11,894 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