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. ADJ1357786 (RDG 0126731)
Regular
May 10, 2010

MARK JAMES vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY; PERMISSIBLY SELF-INSURED ADMINISTERED BY SEDGWICK 14627 ONTARIO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Pacific Bell's petition for reconsideration of an award to Mark James. The original award found James sustained a 100% permanent disability due to industrial melanoma, and Pacific Bell argued for apportionment to non-industrial causes. The Board affirmed the finding that the Agreed Medical Evaluator, Dr. Blau, was unable to determine the percentage of disability caused by non-industrial factors due to insufficient information. This inability to apportion, not a failure to consult, meant Pacific Bell failed to meet its burden of proof for apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific Bell Telephone CompanyMark JamesMaintenance Splicing TechnicianMelanomaPermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 4663Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Dr. Robert Blau
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bottone v. New York Telephone Co.

Plaintiff Salvatore Bottone, Jr., an employee of General Electric, sustained injuries after falling on a debris-littered stairway during working hours on June 5, 1979. He and his wife subsequently sued the renovation contractors, Levi Case Company and New York Telephone Company. A jury found both defendants equally responsible, awarding damages to Bottone and his wife. The defendants appealed, contending the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that Bottone was contributorily negligent, and that the damages were excessive. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of defendant liability, lack of contributory negligence, and reasonable damages given the severity of Bottone's permanent and chronic injuries.

premises liabilitypersonal injurystairway fallconstruction site safetydebriscontractor liabilityemployer negligencecomparative negligenceproximate causeexcessive damages
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bahr v. New York Telephone Co.

This case involves a complaint initiated by Ricky Carnivale, later substituted by Morton Bahr, on behalf of the Communication Workers of America, against the New York Telephone Company. The complainant alleged a violation of Section 900-2.0 (subd. c) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, pertaining to the transportation of individuals to replace striking employees. The court meticulously analyzed the definitions within the Administrative Code, particularly focusing on what constitutes a 'strikebreaker' and the involvement of parties 'not directly involved in a strike.' The judge concluded that the New York Telephone Company was directly involved in the strike, rendering certain provisions inapplicable. Crucially, the court found a lack of evidence that the individuals brought in met the statutory definition of 'strikebreakers' who 'customarily and repeatedly' offer themselves for employment during a strike. Therefore, the court ruled that a complaint should not be issued against the defendant.

StrikeLabor DisputeStrikebreakersAdministrative CodeNew York City LawUnion RightsEmployer RightsComplaint DenialIndustrial RelationsSubstitute Complainant
References
1
Case No. ADJ3030472
Regular
Jul 01, 2010

RAYMOND SIKES vs. SBC/PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO., LIBERTY MUTUAL 29073 GLENDALE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, SBC/Pacific Bell Telephone Co. This reconsideration was sought regarding a previous decision served on April 23, 2010. The Board determined that granting reconsideration was necessary due to statutory time constraints and the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action will allow for a more complete understanding of the record and ensure a just and reasoned decision.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationGRANTINGOPINION AND ORDERstatutory time constraintsfactual and legal issuesjust and reasoned decisionfurther proceedingsDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the Commissioners
References
0
Case No. ADJ18158502
Regular
Aug 14, 2025

Sandra Pleasure vs. G2-Pacific Bell Network Integration, Old Republic Insurance Company

The defendant, G2-Pacific Bell Network Integration and Old Republic Insurance Company, sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) May 19, 2025 finding that applicant Sandra Pleasure's claim for a left knee injury was barred by laches. The defendant argued lack of employment during the claimed period and that the injury was specific, barring the claim by the statute of limitations. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, determining the defendant was not an aggrieved party since the WCJ's decision already precluded the applicant's claim against them due to laches. The Board also noted the defendant failed to present evidence on employment at trial and cautioned against frivolous petitions.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDismissedAggrieved PartyStatute of LimitationsLachesLeft Knee InjuryEmploymentDate of InjurySpecific Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Strauss v. Belle Realty Co.

On July 13, 1977, a power failure caused by Consolidated Edison left most of New York City in darkness. Plaintiff, Julius Strauss, a tenant in an apartment building, fell on darkened stairs in a common area while attempting to obtain water, sustaining injuries. He sued his landlord, Belle Realty Company, for negligence in maintaining the stairs and Consolidated Edison for negligence in failing to provide electricity. The central legal question was whether Con Edison owed a duty of care to Strauss, a non-customer regarding the common areas of the building, given his landlord's separate contractual relationship with the utility. The court concluded that, as a matter of public policy concerning a widespread blackout, liability for injuries in a building's common areas should be limited by the contractual relationship. The Appellate Division's decision to dismiss the complaint against Con Edison was affirmed.

Power OutageBlackoutUtility LiabilityDuty of CareContractual RelationshipPrivity of ContractGross NegligencePersonal InjuryPremises LiabilityPublic Policy
References
24
Case No. ADJ9351345
Regular
Jul 05, 2016

WILLIAM YONEMITSU vs. PACIFIC BELL TELPHONE COMPANY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant Pacific Bell sought reconsideration of a decision awarding applicant cumulative injury benefits and denying the employer's claim for "excess credit." The defendant argued it was entitled to credit for payments made under a disability plan, citing relevant case law. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, agreeing with the trial judge that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof. This failure was primarily due to not presenting the disability plan itself or evidence of its funding and the parties' intent at trial. The Board also noted that ERISA preemption was raised for the first time on reconsideration, without an evidentiary hearing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific Bell Telephone CompanyOld Republic Insurance CompanyWilliam Yonemitsucumulative injurykneeslow backcable splicing techexcess creditPetition for Reconsideration
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Staruch v. New York Telephone Co.

This case involves cross-appeals from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning an employer's right to reimbursement for benefits paid. Specifically, the New York Telephone Company sought full reimbursement for workers’ compensation benefits and payments from an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan paid to claimant Janice Staruch. The court affirmed the Board’s determination that the company was not entitled to full reimbursement for ERISA plan benefits because it failed to file proof of the plan’s terms prior to the schedule award, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (c). The court also declined to address the ERISA preemption argument squarely, noting it was not properly presented to grant the specific relief sought. Furthermore, the court found it lacked jurisdiction over issues related to 974 other consolidated cases, as only Janice Staruch had filed an appeal in this instance.

Workers' Compensation LawERISA PreemptionReimbursement ClaimSchedule AwardStatutory InterpretationAppellate JurisdictionEmployee Welfare BenefitsWorkers' Compensation BoardConsolidated AppealsNew York Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MBB Realty Ltd. Partnership v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (In re Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.)

This is an appeal from a Bankruptcy Court order denying summary judgment for the appellant, MBB Realty Limited Partnership, and granting it for the appellee, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. The dispute centered on a commercial lease, which was amended to include percentage rent and later involved A&P's plan to further downsize, leading to a contested letter agreement regarding new percentage rent terms and property alterations. The Bankruptcy Court found the letter agreement void for lack of consideration, despite A&P's subsequent payments, a decision MBB appealed. The District Court affirmed, concluding that MBB's alleged consent to exterior changes or store downsizing did not constitute valid consideration, as these actions were either not explicitly agreed upon or already permissible under the existing lease terms, thus rendering the agreement unenforceable. Consequently, arguments about ratification or the satisfaction of conditions precedent were deemed irrelevant for a void contract.

Contract LawConsiderationParol Evidence RuleSummary JudgmentBankruptcy AppealCommercial LeasePercentage RentLease AmendmentRatificationGood Faith and Fair Dealing
References
64
Case No. ADJ347577
Regular
Mar 09, 2011

STEPHEN FLANNERY vs. G & O SERVICES, ODIE PRETTYMAN, PACIFIC BELL, CAMBRIDGE SACRAMENTO, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT, SEDGWICK CIGA GLENDALE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Pacific Bell's petition for reconsideration regarding a penalty on delayed temporary disability payments. The WCJ had previously ordered Pacific Bell to pay the overdue temporary disability benefits and deferred the penalty issue. Pacific Bell argued the penalty claim was resolved under Labor Code §5814(c) upon payment, but the Board found no merit in this argument. The matter is returned to the trial level for resolution of the applicant's attorney fees related to the penalty under Labor Code §5814.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLabor Code §5814.5Attorneys' FeesCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Pacific BellTemporary Disability IndemnityPenaltiesInterestAward
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 8,089 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