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

Le Boeuf v. Newman

This case involves appeals from judgments entered upon verdicts in negligence actions for personal injuries (La Falce) and wrongful death (Le Boeuf). The appellants' liability was clearly proven. The judgment in the La Falce action was affirmed. However, the $55,000 verdict in the Le Boeuf death action, concerning a 17-year-old decedent, was deemed excessive by the court. The court determined that the pecuniary loss could not exceed $35,000 in addition to approximately $2,000 in special damages. Consequently, the judgment in the Le Boeuf action was reversed, and a new trial ordered, unless the respondent stipulates to reduce the verdict to $37,000 and interest, in which case the reduced judgment would be affirmed.

NegligencePersonal InjuryWrongful DeathExcessive VerdictDamagesPecuniary LossAppellate ReviewConditional AffirmanceJudgment ModificationNew Trial
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bright v. Le Moyne College

The plaintiff, a former custodian at Le Moyne College, sued Le Moyne and her union, Teamsters Local 317, alleging sex and racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She claimed adverse employment actions including a shift change, being compelled to punch in for lunch breaks, exclusion from social events, co-workers being instructed not to speak to her, and ignored incident reports, ultimately leading to constructive discharge. The court found that her shift change did not constitute an adverse employment action and that Le Moyne had appropriate procedures for addressing her complaints. Furthermore, the court dismissed the Title VII claim against the Union due to the plaintiff's failure to name it in her EEOC charge. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants and dismissed the complaint.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliationConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentDuty of Fair RepresentationEEOC ComplaintPrima Facie CaseAdverse Employment ActionShift Rotation
References
35
Case No. ADJ3002899
Regular
May 05, 2015

RAQUEL CARBAJAL vs. LE PAFE INC, PACIFIC COMP

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant, LE PAFE INC., seeks removal to overturn a rescinded order that would have resolved a lien claim for $5,000. The Appeals Board denied the removal petition, agreeing with the WCJ that the matter should be set for a new lien trial. This allows the WCJ to determine the timeliness of the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration and address the merits of the lien if appropriate. The Board's decision aims to ensure a proper record and decision are made after full review of evidence.

Petition for RemovalOrder Rescinding DecisionWCJ JurisdictionLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingProof of ServiceCompromise and ReleaseDate of InjuryLien Trial
References
1
Case No. ADJ4571463 (AHM 0150883)
Regular
Jan 02, 2013

DANIEL LE COMPTE vs. VOLCOM, INC., WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded an administrative law judge's dismissal of applicant Daniel Le Compte's case for lack of prosecution. The WCAB found no good reason to force the applicant to refile when he expressed a desire to proceed with his claim, especially given the system's policy favoring expedited and inexpensive dispute resolution. The Board emphasized the overriding policy to decide claims on their merits. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

WCABReconsiderationDismissalLack of ProsecutionRule 10582ExpeditiousInexpensiveRescindedMeritsRelated Case
References
2
Case No. ADJ1353365
Regular
Sep 16, 2008

MARIA GUILLEN vs. LE MERIGOT HOTEL; ARROWPOINT CAPITAL CORPORATION; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL/HOLLYWOOD RENAISSANCE HOTEL

The WCAB granted reconsideration, affirming the June 25, 2008 Findings and Award but amending it to be a Joint and Several Findings and Award and appointing Le Merigot as administrator.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardJoint and SeveralLe Merigot HotelArrowpoint Capital CorporationMarriott InternationalHousekeeperIndustrial InjuryNeck Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ497796 (SJO 0224572)
Regular
Jun 01, 2009

DIEN LE vs. HMR USA, INC., LUMBERMAN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, BROADSPIRE, a CRAWFORD COMPANY

This case concerns applicant Dien Le's industrial injury to his back and psyche. The Appeals Board affirmed the finding of psychiatric injury, holding that a three-day absence from work did not violate the six-month employment requirement for such claims. However, the Board rescinded the $70\%$ permanent disability finding due to insufficient explanation of how it was derived from the evidence. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on permanent disability, apportionment, and attorney's fees.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysix-month employment requirementpermanent disabilityQualified Medical Evaluationorthopedic permanent disabilitysubstantial complianceactual servicerange of evidenceapportionment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Le Savoy v. Harnes

The case concerns a malpractice action filed by an unnamed plaintiff against her former co-employee, Dr. Jack Harnes, and her former employer, American International Group (AIG). The plaintiff alleges that during routine physical examinations conducted between 1978 and 1980, the defendants negligently failed to diagnose cancerous disease processes evident in her X-rays. This failure, she claims, led to the aggravation and metastasis of the cancer to her brain. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's sole remedy lies within the Workers' Compensation Law, as the alleged injury arose from her employment. The court deliberated on whether the injury constituted an "accidental injury" under the Workers' Compensation Law, concluding that the inadvertent nonfeasance of the doctor in failing to diagnose the condition qualifies as such an accident. Consequently, the court found the injury compensable under Workers' Compensation but decided to stay the malpractice action pending a final determination by the Workers' Compensation Board due to the novelty of the legal question.

MalpracticeWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentMedical NegligenceCancer DiagnosisX-ray MisinterpretationCo-employee LiabilityAccidental InjuryEmployment Relationship
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Le Doux v. City of Rochester

Plaintiff, a forensic chemist employed at Monroe County’s Public Safety Laboratory, suffered an ear injury due to a coemployee firing a revolver. Despite accepting workers' compensation benefits, plaintiff sued the coemployee, alleging the act was intentional and outside the scope of employment. The Supreme Court granted the coemployee's motion for summary judgment, ruling that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding that injuries from coemployee horseplay during work are compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Law, making compensation benefits the sole recourse. Additionally, the complaint failed to allege deliberate intent to injure, instead claiming negligence, carelessness, and recklessness.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyHorseplayCoemployee LiabilityIntentional TortSummary JudgmentForensic ChemistEar InjuryScope of EmploymentNegligence
References
3
Case No. ADJ11148584, ADJ11607816
Regular
Dec 31, 2018

BRIDGETT LE BOY vs. KAISER PERMANENTE

The applicant sought reconsideration of an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) for $\$28,000.00$ related to back and lower extremity injuries. She argued she would not have settled if she had known her functional capacity test, crucial for her return to work, was approved on the same day as the settlement. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration due to the applicant's allegations and the Board's broad discretion. The OACR was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine if the stipulations should be set aside.

Order Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryPharmacy TechnicianFunctional Capacity TestMandatory Settlement ConferenceAppeals BoardWorkers' Compensation JudgeGood CauseFraud
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Le Myre v. La Belle

This case involves appeals from two Workers’ Compensation Board decisions. The Board found that the claimant, a 15-year-old groom, suffered a disabling injury within the course of employment and established an employer-employee relationship with Stephen M. La Belle, owner of Steve Belle’s Racing Stable. La Belle contended the claimant was a volunteer, denying any payment. The Board, however, credited the claimant’s testimony regarding the nature of the work, payment, and La Belle's control, finding substantial evidence for an employer-employee relationship. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions.

Employer-Employee DisputeSubstantial Evidence ReviewCredibility AssessmentAppellate AffirmationMinor EmploymentEquine IndustryOccupational InjuryWage Non-Payment ClaimSaratoga CountyBoard Decision Appeal
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 19 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