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

In re John Lack Associates, LLC

John Lack Associates, LLC, an agency placing waiters and bartenders, was audited by the Department of Labor, which determined these workers were employees, making John Lack liable for unemployment insurance contributions. This determination was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence of John Lack's control over the workers. The court noted that workers could refuse jobs, often worked for other agencies, provided their own equipment, and were supervised and directed by the client at events, who also paid their remuneration through John Lack. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorUnemployment insurance contributionsAgency controlRight to controlRemittedAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor Law
References
5
Case No. ADJ9919365, ADJ9919392, ADJ10564628
Regular
Aug 25, 2017

ALFREDO JORDAN RAMOS vs. BEN'S ROOFING, INC., REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision due to improperly identified exhibits and a lack of specific record citations in the opinion. The WCJ improperly admitted grouped medical reports and failed to cite which specific reports formed the basis of the Findings and Award. While the Appeals Board acknowledges the potential admissibility of the applicant's treating physician's later report, the WCJ retains discretion over its admission. The case is returned for further proceedings to allow for proper development of the record and a clearer articulation of the WCJ's reasoning.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardQualified Medical EvaluatorTreating Physician ReportLabor Code Section 5703Develop the RecordAdmissibility of EvidencePermanent DisabilityPanel QME
References
5
Case No. ADJ10102786
Regular
May 08, 2019

DANIELA BEAUDIN vs. LINDSAY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior decision and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The WCAB found the original decision lacked specific citations to the evidence in the record, making it impossible to assess the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) reasoning. The petitioner, Med-Legal Photocopy, failed to adequately support its claim for reimbursement of copying services with specific references to the evidence, violating WCAB rules. Therefore, the case needs to be reheard to ensure the ALJ's decision is properly supported by the record.

Med-Legal ExpenseLabor Code Section 4621WCAB Rule 10451Otis v. City of Los AngelesNon-IBR PetitionMedical RecordsSubpoenasInvoicesExplanation of ReviewsReasonable and Necessary
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woodward v. Raymond James Financial, Inc.

Plaintiff John Woodward filed a class action complaint alleging that Raymond James Financial, Inc. (RJF) and its executives engaged in a scheme to defraud shareholders by making material misrepresentations about the adequacy of loan loss reserves for its subsidiary, Raymond James Bank. The complaint detailed an alleged fraudulent scheme involving purposeful underfunding of loan loss reserves, concealment of risky lending practices, and misrepresentation of management styles and SEC filings. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Section 10(b) claim lacked actionable misrepresentations, adequate scienter, and loss causation, and that the Section 20(a) claims lacked a primary violation. The court found that most alleged misrepresentations were non-actionable puffery or lacked specificity, with only statements regarding independent underwriting being considered actionable. However, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to plead scienter with the required particularity, as most allegations were common corporate motives or lacked specific supporting facts. Consequently, the Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissPleading StandardsPSLRARule 9(b)ScienterMaterial MisrepresentationLoan Loss ReservesFinancial Institutions
References
16
Case No. 85-00738
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Watt

This case, on remittitur from the Court of Appeals, addresses whether five-month time periods alleged in an indictment for sexual abuse crimes against a minor (victim NB) were reasonably specific to provide the defendant, James Watt, with adequate notice to prepare a defense. The Court applies the People v Morris test, examining factors such as prosecutorial diligence, victim's age (3-9 years old), the nature of the widespread abuse in an illegal day-care center, and the defendant's threats that prevented early disclosure. Despite the lack of specific dates, the Court finds no intentional nondisclosure or lack of diligence by the prosecution. Given the circumstances, including the defendant's living and working at the crime scene and the victims' inability to particularize dates, the Court concludes that the five-month time allegations were reasonably precise. Therefore, the defendant's convictions on specific counts of rape and sodomy are affirmed.

Child sexual abuseIndictment specificityTime allegationsDue process noticeAlibi defenseProsecutorial diligenceChild victim testimonyDay-care center crimesAppellate reviewRemittitur
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Higueros v. New York State Catholic Health Plan, Inc.

Thelma Higueros, a marketing and sales representative, initiated a putative class-action lawsuit against her former employer, Fidelis Care, Inc., alleging unpaid overtime wages under federal FLSA and New York State Labor Law, and retaliatory termination for complaining about these violations. Defendant Fidelis moved to dismiss the retaliation claims, asserting that informal complaints were not protected by FLSA and that the state law claims lacked specificity. Fidelis also sought dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing its Rule 68 Offer of Judgment mooted the plaintiff's individual claims. The court granted the dismissal of the FLSA retaliation claim, agreeing that informal complaints are not protected. However, it denied the dismissal of the New York Labor Law retaliation claim, finding sufficient specificity. The court also denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the New York Labor Law retaliation claim remained active and a class certification motion was pending.

OvertimeRetaliationFLSANew York Labor LawClass ActionMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionInformal ComplaintsPleading StandardsRule 68 Offer of Judgment
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robinson v. United States

Plaintiff Sally Robinson, representing her deceased husband Edward Robinson's estate, sued asbestos manufacturers, including Celotex Corporation, for wrongful death due to asbestos exposure on merchant ships. Defendant Celotex moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the claims were non-maritime. The court examined prior Second Circuit rulings, particularly Keene Corp. v. United States, which denied admiralty jurisdiction for land-based asbestos exposure, and Lingo v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., which extended this to seamen if the product wasn't specifically maritime. However, the court found that the Supreme Court's East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc. decision, which incorporated products liability into general maritime law for torts on the high seas, altered the landscape. While Keene focused on whether the product was 'specifically designed for maritime use,' East River suggested a different standard for torts occurring on the high seas involving maritime commerce. The court concluded that East River precluded an asbestos manufacturer from arguing that because asbestos used on shipboard was not specifically designed for maritime use, a seaman injured by the asbestos on the high seas cannot invoke admiralty jurisdiction. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was denied.

Admiralty jurisdictionAsbestos exposureWrongful deathMaritime lawProducts liabilitySeamenFederal jurisdictionTort claimsSubject matter jurisdictionShipboard injury
References
8
Case No. ADJ3474065 (SFO 0502322)
Regular
Jun 29, 2011

LINDA R. CARDOZO vs. SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, PSI, Administered By TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The applicant sought reconsideration of the denial of temporary disability and salary continuation benefits for a period of personal leave. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof. Specifically, the applicant lacked medical evidence establishing temporary disability during her leave, and the Agreed Medical Evaluator did not opine on disability for that specific period. Furthermore, the request to re-open discovery for supplemental medical opinions was denied due to lack of good cause and prior notice of the dispute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSan Francisco Unified School DistrictTristar Risk Managementtemporary disabilitysalary continuationleave of absenceAgreed Medical EvaluatorDr. Allan Kippermandiscovery
References
0
Case No. ADJ9178137
Regular
Oct 29, 2015

GERALD GRAHAM vs. CITY OF ORANGE, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the trial judge's findings, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Board found the trial judge's decision lacked clarity regarding the specific body parts injured, the date of injury under Labor Code section 5412, and the application of the statute of limitations to numerous claimed injuries. This lack of specificity rendered the findings on industrial causation and defenses unclear. The Board instructed the trial judge to obtain further medical reporting and issue a new decision addressing all claimed body parts and conditions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGerald GrahamCity of OrangeKeenan & AssociatesFindings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5412Statute of LimitationsLachesPost-termination Defenses
References
0
Case No. ADJ4609608 (SDO 0128566) ADJ359238 (SDO 0177353) ADJ2367088 (SDO 0203407) ADJ501165 (SDO 0230909) ADJ4697798 (SDO 0230913) ADJ4262068 (SDO 0230915) ADJ8302988
Regular
Oct 23, 2018

Matthew Lawrie vs. Lawrie and Company, Inc., Lawrie Racing, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The petition was dismissed because it did not seek reconsideration of a final order or award, which is a prerequisite for such a petition. Furthermore, the petition was found to be "skeletal," lacking specific details, evidence, or legal citations required by statute and regulation. As a result, the Board found the petition procedurally defective.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderWCJ ReportDismissalSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural DecisionEvidentiary Decision
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 9,645 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