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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
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. ADJ2110739 (MON 0313927)
Regular
Oct 01, 2010

Rosalind Eskridge (Vallery) vs. TARGET STORES, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case returns to the trial level for a comprehensive re-analysis of applicant's permanent disability rating, specifically focusing on the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) adjustment factor. The Board rescinded the prior award because the judge's decision did not fully adhere to the *Ogilvie* en banc decisions, which mandate a specific four-step analysis for rebutting the DFEC. The judge must now conduct a complete *Ogilvie* analysis, potentially developing the record further, to determine if the applicant's demonstrated earning loss and other relevant factors, including *Montana* factors, justify an individualized DFEC adjustment over the scheduled rating. The applicant bears the burden of proving that her evidence substantially overcomes the prima facie validity of the scheduled DFEC.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFECPermanent Disability Rating Schedule2005 PDRSOgilvie analysisAgreed Medical ExaminerDisability Evaluation UnitDEUAgreed Medical Examiner
References
6
Case No. SJO 0264010
Regular
Feb 11, 2008

CIPRIANO LOMOTAN vs. GE INFRASTUCTURE SECURITY, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

In *Lomotan v. GE Infrastructure Security*, the Appeals Board vacated a judge's notice of intention to impose sanctions and a related job analysis order. This decision followed a Commissioner's Conference where the parties reached a compromise and release resolving all issues, including vocational rehabilitation benefits. The Board found no basis for sanctions and determined the job analysis issue was moot due to the settlement.

RemovalAppeals BoardSupplemental OrderSanctionsWCJCommissioner's ConferenceCompromise and ReleaseVocational RehabilitationSupplemental Job Displacement BenefitsJob Analysis
References
0
Case No. ADJ3864552 (LAO 0788138)
Regular
Jan 03, 2011

ANTONIETA GUERRERO vs. WELLPOINT HEALTH NETWORK, INC., ZURICH LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For FREMONT In Liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award due to insufficient analysis by the WCJ regarding the date(s) of cumulative trauma. The Board found the WCJ's decision lacked specific reference to evidence, particularly on whether multiple or a single period of cumulative trauma applied. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, a new decision, and adequate analysis of all contentions, including permanent disability and apportionment.

Cumulative traumaOveruse syndromeFibromyalgiaPsyche injuryPermanent total disabilityApportionmentAttorney feesFindings and AwardReconsiderationWCJ
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 288 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