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

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. ADJ10171082
Regular
Nov 05, 2019

Mercedes Cuevas vs. Pacific Union Conference of Seventh Day Adventists, Cambridge Administrators, LLC

This case concerns whether the defendant provided adequate notice to the applicant regarding her workers' compensation rights, specifically concerning the statute of limitations. The applicant, who does not speak English, received notices only in English, which may violate Labor Code Section 5401's requirement for notices to be available in both English and Spanish. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior findings and returned the case for further proceedings to determine if the statute of limitations should be tolled. The WCAB emphasized the need to investigate whether the applicant had actual knowledge of her rights and obligations despite the language barrier.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactPermanent Disability Benefits DenialReynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Statute of LimitationsTollingSection 5401Spanish Language NoticeInformation and Assistance Officer
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2004

Foote v. Lyonsdale Energy Limited Partnership

Glenn A. Foote, Jr., an employee, sustained injuries when a wood chip stacker collapsed at the Lyonsdale Cogeneration Facility. He and his wife filed a lawsuit alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 against the facility owners (Lyonsdale Energy Limited Partnership and Moose River Energy, Inc.), the stacker designer (American Bin & Conveyor), and the procurer (Wolf & Associates). The Supreme Court partially granted summary judgment to Lyonsdale and Wolf, dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against Lyonsdale and the negligence claim against Wolf. On cross-appeals, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable as the injury resulted from the structure's collapse rather than the failure of a safety device. The court also upheld the dismissal of the negligence claim against Wolf due to the absence of a duty to the plaintiff, and found a question of fact existed regarding Lyonsdale's supervisory control, thus denying summary judgment to Lyonsdale on other claims.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentNegligenceElevated Work SiteScaffold LawWood Chip StackerDesign DefectSupervisory ControlContractual Obligation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership

Jose Verdugo, a food service deliveryman, was injured in December 2003 and received workers' compensation benefits. He also initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) later determined that Verdugo's disability ended on January 24, 2006, leading to the termination of his benefits. Subsequently, the defendants in the personal injury action sought to preclude Verdugo from relitigating the duration of his disability, arguing collateral estoppel based on the WCB's finding. The court, affirming the WCB's decision, reversed the Appellate Division's order, granting the defendants' motion to preclude further litigation on disability beyond the WCB's determined date, finding the issue was fully and fairly litigated.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsPersonal Injury ActionCollateral EstoppelAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation BoardDisability DurationMedical TreatmentLost EarningsMedical ExpensesGuardianship Proceeding
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garthon Business Inc. v. Stein

The dissenting opinion concerns a dispute over arbitrability stemming from multiple consulting and loan agreements between plaintiffs (affiliated with the Chodiev family, including Patokh Chodiev) and defendants (Kirill Ace Stein and Aurdeley Enterprises Limited). The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation related to $16 million in loans. Various agreements contained conflicting forum selection clauses, some favoring US courts, others English courts, and later ones mandating London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) rules. Justice Gische argues that the question of who decides the proper forum—the court or the arbitrators—is a gateway issue that, given the specific arbitration clauses incorporating LCIA rules (which empower arbitrators to rule on their own jurisdiction), should be determined by the arbitrators. The dissent contends the majority overstepped by interpreting the agreements' applicability to prior disputes.

ArbitrationArbitrabilityForum SelectionContract DisputeBreach of ContractFraudNegligent MisrepresentationConsulting AgreementLondon Court of International ArbitrationLCIA Rules
References
7
Case No. ADJ1 130470 (LBO 0359020)
Regular
Feb 18, 2016

SIGUIDFREDO OVANDO vs. BODYCOTE INTERNATIONAL, INC. (BODYCOTE LINDBERG), TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS AND ITS PROPERTY CASUALTY AFFILIATES AND SUBSIDIARIES

The Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition for removal and granted its petition for reconsideration. The Board found the employer failed to adequately notify the applicant about its Medical Provider Network (MPN), particularly due to the applicant's limited English proficiency and insufficient Spanish-language notices. Consequently, the original Findings and Order disallowing the lien were rescinded, and the case was returned for further proceedings.

MPN notificationLabor Code 4616.3Rule 9767.12self-procured treatmentpetition for removalpetition for reconsiderationFindings and Orderstipulated injurylien claimantburden of proof
References
1
Case No. ADJ6882152
Regular
Aug 19, 2010

Nadia Massoud vs. A-1 AUTO AND TRUCK SERVICE, PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Nadia Massoud's petition for reconsideration of a stipulated workers' compensation award of 14% permanent disability. Massoud claims her former attorney provided inadequate representation, pressured her into the stipulation, and that her limited English proficiency impeded her understanding. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the stipulated award, and returned the matter to the trial level. The WCJ will now determine if good cause exists to set aside the original stipulated award.

Petition for ReconsiderationStipulations with Request for AwardPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorFormer AttorneyMistaken BeliefLimited English ProficiencyGood Cause
References
4
Case No. ADJ10406903
Regular
Jan 11, 2019

LUIS MANUEL MENDEZ SANCHEZ vs. HARTMARK CABINET DESIGN & MANUFACTURING, INC., EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order denying interpreter fees, finding that services for interpreting a Compromise and Release (C&R) may be compensable. The Board clarified that while not explicitly listed in statute, such interpretation could be considered a "similar setting" necessary to ascertain the validity and extent of injury for an applicant with limited English proficiency. The case was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to determine if the interpreter fees were reasonably, actually, and necessarily incurred under Labor Code section 5811 and AD Rule 9795.3.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationInterpreter FeesCompromise and ReleaseLabor Code Section 5811AD Rule 9795.3Judicial EconomyWCJPetition for CostsAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ8799397
Regular
Jul 01, 2014

GABRIEL VASQUEZ vs. CEVA FREIGHT, LLC, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and found applicant Gabriel Vasquez was an employee of CEVA Freight, LLC, reversing the original finding that he was an independent contractor. The WCAB determined that CEVA Freight exerted significant control over Vasquez's work, dictating delivery routes, times, and requiring specific attire and truck branding. Factors such as the nature of the work being part of CEVA's core business and Vasquez's limited English proficiency and education further supported the conclusion that he was an employee, not an independent contractor. This decision overturns the administrative law judge's initial order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEmployee statusIndependent contractorControl of workBorello factorsDistinct occupationSkill requiredInstrumentalitiesMethod of paymentRegular business
References
5
Case No. ADJ9578895
Regular
Mar 02, 2019

FRANCISCA BERMEJO vs. JORGE CASTRO FARMS, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

This case involves Francisca Bermejo's claim for workers' compensation after a lumbar spine injury sustained while picking strawberries. Ms. Bermejo sought 100% permanent disability, arguing vocational evidence established total loss of earning capacity, but the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the trial judge's finding of 23% permanent disability. The WCAB found that vocational evidence supporting total disability was insufficient, particularly as it relied on non-industrial factors like limited education and English proficiency. Furthermore, the WCAB clarified that permanent total disability can only be established through impairment ratings under Labor Code section 4660, not through a separate "in accordance with the fact" finding under Labor Code section 4662(b).

Francisca BermejoJorge Castro FarmsStar Insurance CompanyMeadowbrook Insurance GroupADJ9578895Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationpermanent disabilityapportionmentAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)vocational rehabilitation
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 2,967 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