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. 2016-05-0929
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2017

Peek, Margie E. (Beth) v. Carl Barber and David Barber, d/b/a Speedy B's

Margie E. (Beth) Peek, a waitress at Speedy B's, claimed a work-related injury to her right ankle on September 13, 2015, after slipping into a floor drain, causing immediate pain and swelling. She informed her employers, Carl and David Barber, but did not seek medical attention due to lack of health insurance. The Barbers disputed the severity and work-relatedness of the injury, presenting video evidence showing Ms. Peek walking normally before reporting the injury and with a limp afterward. The Court found that Ms. Peek failed to provide expert medical evidence linking her ankle pain to her employment, thus not establishing compensability for temporary disability benefits. While the request for temporary disability benefits was denied, the Court determined Ms. Peek suffered a work-related injury and Speedy B's failed to provide a panel of physicians, recommending an investigation for a civil penalty against the employer.

Expedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsWork-related InjuryCausationMedical EvidenceEmployer ObligationPanel of PhysiciansCivil PenaltyAnkle InjuryBurden of Proof
References
4
Case No. SFO 0399717 SFO 0399719 SFO 0497379
Regular
Jul 29, 2008

MARY LINDA PEEK vs. WELLS FARGO BANK

This case involves an applicant with multiple industrial injuries to her back and upper extremities, resulting in a claimed 100% permanent disability. The Appeals Board rescinded the initial decision due to the WCJ's failure to properly address apportionment of permanent disability between the injuries, as required by recent case law. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine apportionment consistent with current legal standards, particularly concerning any increase in disability beyond a prior award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationApportionmentPermanent DisabilityIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryWilkinson RuleBenson RuleSB 899
References
6
Case No. RIV 0037205, RIV 0070473
Regular
Jul 24, 2007

LORRIE AVERETTE vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior ruling that Premier Outpatient Surgery Center was properly licensed and not required to have a fictitious name permit for services rendered. The defendant argued Premier lacked proper licensure and a fictitious name permit, but the Board found Premier met its burden of proof by submitting evidence of its licensure and accreditation. Premier was determined to be an "outpatient setting" rather than a "clinic," thus not requiring a fictitious name permit from the Medical Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantFictitious name permitMedical Board of CaliforniaOutpatient surgery servicesLicensureAccreditationAmbulatory surgical centersZenith Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Capi)Stokes v. Patton State Hospital
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Dumont Electric Corp. & Hammer

The court unanimously affirmed the prior order. No detailed opinion was provided. Justices Peek, Glennon, Dore, Van Voorhis, and Shientag were present. The case is referenced as 278 App. Div. 554.

Appellate DecisionUnanimous AffirmationJudicial PanelCosts and DisbursementsBrief DecisionLegal Precedent
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People ex rel. Workers Colony Corp. v. Mills

The order was affirmed with $20 costs and disbursements, and no opinion was provided. Judges Dore, Cohn, Callahan, and Peek were present. Presiding Judge Martin, P.J., dissented from the decision, voting to reverse the order and reinstate the assessments made by the Board of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York.

Costs and DisbursementsAppellate ReviewTax AssessmentsDissenting OpinionJudicial Panel DecisionNew York CityAppeals
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of E.A.C.

This is an appeal concerning a child support order against Lorrie Lou McDonald in favor of Glenn Coterill, stemming from a divorce and a subsequent suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR). McDonald challenged the trial court's order of 'child support arrearage' and its offset against a promissory note. The appellate court clarified that the trial court's separately filed findings of fact, which characterized the amount as 'lump sum child support', controlled over the judgment's use of 'arrearage'. Consequently, the court modified the trial court's order to reflect a lump sum child support award. McDonald's second issue regarding the impermissibility of the offset of child support was not preserved for appeal. The judgment was modified and, as modified, affirmed.

Child SupportAppealDivorce DecreeLump Sum Child SupportChild Support ArrearageFindings of FactConclusions of LawAbuse of DiscretionFamily CodeOffset
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galarza v. American Home Assurance Co.

Lorri Galarza sued her employer, American Home Assurance Company (AHAC), alleging workplace sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York Executive Law. Galarza claimed a co-worker, Marc Kaplan, sexually harassed her, and that she was fired after reporting the harassment to management. AHAC moved for summary judgment, asserting it had a reasonable complaint procedure and that Galarza's termination was due to poor job performance and insubordination, not retaliation. The court found that AHAC provided a reasonable avenue for complaint and made diligent efforts to investigate. Furthermore, the court concluded that Galarza failed to demonstrate that AHAC's stated reasons for her termination were merely a pretext for discrimination. Therefore, AHAC's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing Galarza's claims.

sexual harassmentretaliatory dischargeTitle VIIsummary judgmenthostile work environmentemployee conductperformance deficienciesdiscrimination claimsfederal civil procedure
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arkla Energy Resources v. Jones

Arkla Energy Resources sought a writ of mandamus against Judge Guy Jones of the 202nd District Court, requesting the disqualification of the law firm Hubbard, Patton, Peek, Haltom & Roberts (HPPHR). Arkla argued a conflict of interest, citing HPPHR's prior representation of Arkla in negligence and workers' compensation cases, and its current representation of landowners in condemnation actions against Arkla. Arkla asserted that the condemnation cases, involving claims for damages related to gas pipeline explosions, were substantially related to the previous cases. The court, however, determined that any relationship between the matters was minimal, as the negligence cases focused on specific product negligence while the condemnation cases involved general public apprehension. Concluding that Judge Jones did not abuse his discretion by refusing the disqualification, the court denied Arkla's petition for mandamus.

MandamusDisqualificationConflict of InterestAttorney-Client RelationshipSubstantial Relationship TestCondemnationPipeline EasementsNegligenceWorkers' CompensationProfessional Responsibility
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Avila-Blum v. Casa de Cambio Delgado, Inc.

In this case, District Judge Marrero reviewed the defendants' objections to a protective order issued by Magistrate Judge Andrew Peek. The protective order barred defendants from inquiring into plaintiff Monica Avila-Blum's immigration status during her deposition, citing the prejudicial effect and minimal relevance at the liability stage, and the chilling effect on undocumented workers pursuing employment claims. Defendants argued that the Magistrate Judge erred in applying case law and in limiting the inquiry to the damages phase, asserting its relevance to credibility and citing Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB. Judge Marrero affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order, finding it was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, agreeing that the potential for prejudice and the questionable probative value outweighed the defendants' discovery interests at the liability stage. The court also clarified that Hoffman Plastic was distinguishable and limited in scope. Consequently, the defendants' objections were denied, upholding the protective order.

Protective OrderImmigration StatusDiscovery LimitsCredibility EvidencePrejudicial EvidenceFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployment DiscriminationUndocumented WorkersDistrict Court ReviewMagistrate Judge Order
References
9
Case No. No. 05-03-00554-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2005

In Re EAC

This case involves a limited appeal by Lorrie Lou McDonald against Glenn Coterill concerning a child support order. McDonald and Coterill divorced in 2001, and issues related to the parent-child relationship (SAPCR) were severed and heard later, with the order signed on January 16, 2003. The trial court ordered McDonald to pay "child support arrearage" of $6,119.16 to Coterill, with interest, and allowed an offset against a promissory note Coterill owed McDonald. McDonald appealed, arguing the trial court erred in ordering arrearage without a prior obligation and that the offset was an impermissible modification of the divorce decree. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas, reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law, which characterized the payment as "lump sum child support" rather than arrearage. The appellate court concluded that the separately-filed findings of fact controlled over the judgment and modified the order to reflect a lump sum child support award. The court affirmed the trial court's order as modified, dismissing McDonald's second issue regarding the offset as not preserved for appeal.

Child SupportFamily LawDivorceSAPCRAppellate ProcedureFindings of FactConclusions of LawAbuse of DiscretionPromissory NoteOffset
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 10 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