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

Carmille A. v. David A.

In this Family Court Act article 8 family offense proceeding, the petitioner filed a supplemental petition alleging the respondent willfully violated a modified order of protection on two separate occasions in March 1994. The court found these violations and civilly committed the respondent to consecutive terms of incarceration totaling ten months. The respondent moved for reargument, citing the appellate authority of Matter of Vitti v Vitti, which held that Family Court Act article 8 prohibits consecutive commitments exceeding a total of six months. The presiding judge, Guy P. De Phillips, disagreed with the Vitti ruling, asserting that legislative history and public policy regarding domestic violence support the imposition of consecutive civil commitments for distinct violations, even if the cumulative term exceeds six months, provided they are separate offenses for Sixth Amendment purposes. Consequently, the court denied the respondent's motion for reargument, affirming its authority to impose such consecutive sentences.

Family LawDomestic ViolenceOrder of ProtectionContempt of CourtCivil CommitmentConsecutive SentencesFamily Court ActStatutory InterpretationJudicial DiscretionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 1998

In re the Claim of Kim

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The misconduct involved using offensive language towards a supervisor and kicking the supervisor's office door after being questioned about missing a meeting. The Board credited a co-worker's eyewitness testimony over the claimant's account, a finding upheld by the court as within the Board's authority to resolve credibility issues. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's decision, affirming that disrespectful conduct towards a supervisor, including abusive behavior or vulgar language, constitutes disqualifying misconduct.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductDisqualificationOffensive LanguageWorkplace ConductCredibility DeterminationSupervisory DisrespectAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawEmployment Termination
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 1972

Claim of Marciniak v. Berlitz School of Languages

The claimant, a French teacher, was injured on his way home after teaching a class at an alternate location (Hospital for Special Surgery) following his regular shift at the employer's main school. The Workmen’s Compensation Board denied his claim, but the court reversed this decision. The court reasoned that the claimant, when traveling to and from the remote teaching assignment, was acting as an 'outside worker.' Citing established precedents, the court concluded that the homeward journey from such a special work assignment falls within the course of employment. Therefore, the Board's decision was reversed, and the case was sent back for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Worker's CompensationOutside EmployeeCourse of EmploymentTravel InjuryDual Employment LocationAppealRemittalSpecial Errand RuleWork-Related Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Soo Tsui

The case involves an appeal from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board regarding Language Services Associates, Inc.'s (LSA) liability for unemployment insurance contributions. A claimant, a Cantonese and Mandarin interpreter, filed for benefits after ceasing work for LSA. The Department of Labor determined she was an employee, not an independent contractor, making LSA liable. LSA appealed, but an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the Department's determination. The court, in turn, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship based on LSA's control over assignments, payment practices, and performance monitoring. The court also upheld LSA's liability for similarly situated individuals and found no conflict with Department of Labor guidelines for the translating and interpreting industry.

Employment StatusIndependent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipUnemployment Insurance ContributionsInterpretersTranslation ServicesDepartment of LaborUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardSubstantial EvidenceWorker Classification
References
11
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. ADJ9185717
Regular
Dec 28, 2018

CHALISE SIMMONS vs. MCALISTER INSTITUTE FOR TREATMENT AND EDUCATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final order addressing only procedural or evidentiary matters, not substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board admonished the lien claimant and their attorney for filing an improper petition and using offensive language. Consequently, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed and the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmSanctionable Conduct
References
6
Case No. ADJ7674631 ADJ7676073
Regular
Aug 02, 2016

HOWARD MOZINGO vs. FARMER BROTHERS COMPANY, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The prior decision found the applicant sustained injuries AOE/COE, rebutted the post-termination defense, and found the claim timely. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and reasoning, treating the defendant's "Petition for Removal" as a petition for reconsideration. Additionally, the Board strongly admonished the defendant's attorneys for disrespectful and offensive language used against the WCJ, noting potential sanctions.

AOE/COEpost termination defensestatute of limitationsPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalsubstantial evidencedue processLabor Code 3202.5Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardadministrative law judge
References
4
Case No. ADJ861951 (SBR 0325578)
Regular
Sep 26, 2017

MICHELE DOERKSEN vs. VICTOR VALLEY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, ZENITH INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, adopting the reasoning of the WCJ. Additionally, the Board admonished applicant's attorney, S. Roger Kampf, for using offensive, inappropriate, and disrespectful language in the petition, specifically accusations that the judge wrote her opinion as a defense attorney rather than an impartial judge. Mr. Kampf was also admonished for filing a pleading containing false or misleading statements of fact. Failure to comply with Board rules in the future may result in sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code § 5813Sanctionable ConductOffensive LanguageMisrepresentation of FactDefenses Attorney AllegationSlanted AnalysisMedical Expert Review
References
0
Case No. ADJ15619594
Regular
Sep 09, 2025

OLISAEMEKA EZE vs. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., SEDGWICK CMS

Applicant Olisaemeka Eze sought reconsideration of a March 10, 2025 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision after Reconsideration. The Board previously amended a WCJ's November 26, 2024 Findings, Award, and Orders regarding the provision of the applicant's non-privileged claims file for in-camera review, while otherwise affirming the FA&O. The Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely, noting it was filed on June 6, 2025, past the April 4, 2025 deadline. Additionally, the Board admonished the applicant for using offensive language in their petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationOpinion and OrderWorkers' Compensation JudgeFindings Award and Ordersnon-privileged claims filein-camera reviewBurden of ProofCalifornia Evidence Code 623untimely petitionLabor Code section 5909
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1996

In re the Claim of Agis

The claimant, a hospital linen clerk, was discharged from her employment following multiple complaints of verbal and physical harassment towards her co-workers. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct and ordered a recoverable overpayment. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing that offensive workplace behavior, including abusive language and assaultive conduct, constitutes disqualifying misconduct, especially when the employee has been previously warned. The court found substantial evidence to support the finding that the claimant's employment was terminated under disqualifying circumstances, emphasizing that the Board has the authority to resolve issues of credibility from conflicting testimony.

Unemployment benefitsMisconductWorkplace harassmentVerbal abusePhysical harassmentEmployee dischargeEmployer admonishmentCredibility determinationAppellate reviewSubstantial evidence
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 493 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