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

Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

Plaintiff Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, PC. sued defendant New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company (NYCMFIC) for overdue first-party no-fault benefits following a brain MRI performed on Abdelghani Kinane. NYCMFIC moved for summary judgment, asserting the action was premature because Elmont allegedly failed to respond to verification requests, thereby tolling NYCMFIC's time to pay or deny the claim. Elmont countered with an affidavit from its billing supervisor, Brijkumar Yamraj, and a certificate of mailing, proving the requested MRI films and information were sent to NYCMFIC on November 12, 2008. The court found Elmont's proof of mailing sufficient to establish a response, thus denying NYCMFIC's motion and subsequently granting summary judgment to Elmont upon searching the record.

No-fault insuranceVerification requestsSummary judgmentProof of mailingMedical benefitsInsurance claims processTolling of time limitMotor vehicle accidentRadiology fee scheduleBusiness records
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.

Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation ("Fox") and its branch manager, Leila J. Goldstein, were found guilty of criminal contempt for violating a 1951 consent decree from United States v. Loew’s Inc. The decree enjoined Fox from "block booking" films, a practice where the right to exhibit one film is conditioned upon licensing others. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found overwhelming evidence that Goldstein, acting within the scope of her authority, willfully and repeatedly violated this order by coercing exhibitors into licensing less desirable films before more popular ones. The court also found Fox criminally liable for Goldstein's managerial conduct. Sentencing for both defendants was scheduled for December 7, 1988.

Criminal ContemptBlock BookingConsent Decree ViolationMotion Picture IndustrySherman ActAntitrust LawCorporate Criminal LiabilityWillful ViolationManagerial Employee ConductFilm Distribution
References
9
Case No. ADJ3923408
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

Andrea Seyfried vs. Compass Films, Inc., National Surety Company/Fireman's Fund, Power Payroll, Inc., California Insurance Guarantee Association for Legion Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that the applicant sustained an industrial injury while employed by both Power Payroll (general employer) and Compass Films (special employer). Power Payroll was insured by Legion Insurance, whose obligations are now handled by CIGA. Compass Films was insured by Fireman's Fund. The Board rescinded the prior order finding Power Payroll as the sole employer and returned the case for proceedings to determine the respective liabilities of CIGA and Fireman's Fund. CIGA is not liable if Fireman's Fund policy constitutes "other insurance" available to the applicant.

General employerSpecial employerDual employmentPayroll servicesFilm industryInsurance Guarantee AssociationInsurer insolvencySpecial employer controlPayroll companyProduction manager
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pegg v. Shahin

This case involves three consolidated negligence actions arising from an automobile accident. Plaintiffs Paul Morabito, Angela Morabito, Peter K. Burke, Kenneth Pegg, and Edith Pegg obtained judgments against defendants Gloria Minlionica and Riad M. Shahin. The defendants appealed these judgments. The appellate court affirmed the judgments, rejecting the Workers’ Compensation Law affirmative defense for Paul Morabito and Gloria Minlionica. The court also upheld the trial court's decision allowing a treating physician to testify about X-ray and MRI results, and found no error in the plaintiffs' failure to produce certain X-rays and MRI films, as expert findings were based on clinical observations.

NegligenceAutomobile AccidentPersonal InjuryJury VerdictAppealAffirmed JudgmentWorkers' Compensation DefenseMedical TestimonyX-ray EvidenceMRI Results
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yash Raj Films (USA), Inc. v. Akhtar (In Re Akhtar)

Yash Raj Films (USA), Inc. (

Copyright InfringementNondischargeabilityBankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(6)Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentWillful and Malicious InjuryPreliminary InjunctionCivil ContemptStatutory DamagesChapter 7
References
38
Case No. 13 Civ. 1297 (JPO)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2014

Duffey v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.

This case revolves around Todd Duffey, an actor who portrayed a character in the movie *Office Space*, suing Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Running Press. Duffey alleged false endorsement under the Lanham Act and breach of contract, claiming unauthorized use of his image on 'Box of Flair' merchandise. The court, presided over by District Judge J. Paul Oetken, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The decision was based on the interpretation of Duffey's Day Player Agreement, which was found to unambiguously grant 'all rights throughout the universe' to his performance, including its use for commercial purposes like merchandise. Applying Texas contract law, the court concluded that the defendants' use of Duffey's image was permissible, leading to the dismissal of all his claims.

Intellectual PropertyContract DisputeFalse EndorsementLanham ActDay Player AgreementMerchandising RightsActor RightsFilm IndustryTexas Contract LawChoice of Law
References
60
Case No. ADJ8857482
Regular
Jan 28, 2014

RENE QUINTANA vs. NEW ALBERTSONS, INC.; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involved a petition for reconsideration that was denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board adopted the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge, also denying reconsideration. The applicant's complaints regarding the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) review of medical records, consideration of MRI films, and comments on an "internal injury/hernia" were rejected. The Board found no error in the AME's report or the approval of the compromise and release agreement given the applicant's claimed injuries and representation by counsel.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorOrthopedicsMedical Records ReviewMRI FilmInternal InjuryHerniaCompromise and Release AgreementWCJ Report
References
0
Case No. ADJ3701295 (AHM 0146448)
Regular
Oct 07, 2013

PAULA GUEVARA vs. NORTHGATE GONZALEZ MARKET, ZENITH ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration for lien claimant Max MRI. While affirming the denial of Max MRI's lien claim for lack of evidence, the Board vacated the sanctions imposed. The Board found that Max MRI was denied due process regarding the sanctions, as the issue was not properly noticed or heard. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a decision on costs and sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantMax MRIFrivolous lienSanctionsDue processMedical Provider NetworkCompromise and ReleaseFindings and Order
References
3
Case No. ADJ1083014 (POM 0275607) ADJ4477705 (POM 0275608)
Regular
May 29, 2009

LILIAN SOTO vs. PM GLOVES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involved a lien claimant seeking payment for an MRI. The Workers' Compensation Judge initially disallowed the lien for failing to meet Labor Code section 5703 requirements. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the WCJ erred by strictly applying section 5703. They determined that other evidence, including the treating physician's report referenced in a settlement, established the validity of the MRI expense. Therefore, the Board allowed the lien claim for the MRI.

Lien claimantReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5703Labor Code Section 4626Finding and OrderWorkers' Compensation Judge (WCJ)Compromise and Release (C&R)MRILumbar SpineSelf-procured medical treatment
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2006

Clonus Associates v. Dreamworks, LLC

This copyright infringement case was brought by Robert Fiveson and Clonus Assocs. against DreamWorks, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that DreamWorks' 2005 film, 'The Island,' infringed the copyright of Fiveson's 1979 movie, 'Parts: The Clonus Horror.' Both films depict secret facilities where clones are raised for organ harvesting. Following discovery, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied both motions, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding access to the copyrighted work, the degree of similarity between the films, and the defense of independent creation. The court also denied the defendants' motion to preclude damages, as profit calculations were highly contested.

Copyright InfringementSummary JudgmentMotion DeniedFilm IndustryMovie CopyrightSubstantial SimilarityActual CopyingIndependent CreationAccess to WorkProbative Similarity
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 125 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