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. 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. ADJ4655433 (STK 0183897) ADJ4135432 (STK 0183898)
Regular
Sep 08, 2010

CARMELA GARCIA vs. E & J GALLO WINERY, P.S.I.

This case concerns a request for supplemental attorney's fees following an unsuccessful petition for writ of review by defendant E & J Gallo Winery. The Court of Appeal previously granted the applicant's request for fees under Labor Code § 5801 and remanded the matter. The applicant's attorney requested $3,150.00 for services related to answering the petition, which the defendant did not dispute in amount, only in principle. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the requested amount reasonable and issued a supplemental award of $3,150.00 in attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5801attorney's feessupplemental awardpetition for writ of reviewremittiturreasonable basisapplicantdefendantE & J Gallo Winery
References
1
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00461
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

Matter of Executive Cleaning Servs. Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Labor

Executive Cleaning Services Corporation and Cef Saiz, the petitioners, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor, alleging they failed to pay prevailing wages for cleaning services provided to the Ossining Public Library. The Department of Labor initiated an investigation following an employee complaint and concluded that the contract was subject to the prevailing wage provisions of Labor Law article 9. Petitioners argued the library was not a 'public agency' as defined by Labor Law § 230 (3), thus exempting their contract from prevailing wage requirements. The Appellate Division, Third Department, ultimately agreed with the petitioners, finding that despite its public function and ties to the school district, the Ossining Public Library does not fit the statutory definition of a public agency under Labor Law § 230 (3). Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was annulled, the petition granted, and the action for declaratory judgment severed and remitted to the Supreme Court.

Prevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 9Public Agency DefinitionOssining Public LibraryEducation CorporationCPLR Article 78 ProceedingDeclaratory Judgment ActionBuilding Service ContractsSchool District Public LibraryAdministrative Law
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 8,998 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