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. 14-CV-1044
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2018

Greene v. Paramount Pictures Corp.

Plaintiff Andrew Greene sued Paramount Pictures, Red Granite Pictures, and Appian Way for defamation, alleging he was portrayed inaccurately in 'The Wolf of Wall Street' movie through the character Nicky Koskoff. Greene claimed the character, nicknamed 'Rugrat' (mocking his toupee, similar to Greene's 'Wigwam'), defamed him by depicting him engaged in criminal activity, drug use, and unprofessional behavior. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the character was a composite, not 'of and concerning' Greene, and that they did not act with actual malice. The Court found that even if Koskoff was a depiction of Greene, the plaintiff failed to show clear and convincing evidence that defendants acted with actual malice, as they did not knowingly or recklessly disregard whether the character would be perceived as Greene. Therefore, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Greene's libel claim with prejudice.

DefamationLibelSummary JudgmentActual MalicePublic FigureFictional CharacterComposite CharacterFirst AmendmentMovie ProductionThe Wolf of Wall Street
References
29
Case No. ADJ656416 (RIV 0030336)
Regular
Oct 18, 2011

JOHN CAVEY vs. SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT, CNA CLAIMPLUS, INC., PIPE JACKING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CAST & CREW PAYROLL, CNA CLAIMPLUS, PARAMOUNT PICTURES, ST PAUL/TRAVELERS INSURANCE, et al.

This case concerns reconsideration petitions filed by Paramount Pictures and State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) regarding an arbitrator's award of the date of injury for workers' compensation purposes. Paramount's petition is dismissed as untimely filed. SCIF's petition, arguing against the September 1999 last date of injurious exposure based on medical evidence, is denied for the reasons stated in the arbitrator's report. The Board adopted the arbitrator's findings and incorporated the report into their decision.

Labor Code section 5412Labor Code $\S$5500.5date of injuryinjurious exposureapportionmentcontributionpetition for reconsiderationuntimely petitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAward of Arbitrator
References
2
Case No. ADJ8330411
Regular
Jul 07, 2017

LARRY SINGLETARY vs. PARAMOUNT PICTURES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Paramount Pictures' petition for reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision. Paramount argued the ALJ erred by applying a 50% WPI for the applicant's right lower extremity, instead of 30%, based on conflicting reports from an agreed medical examiner. The ALJ found the evidence insufficient to prove the applicant could walk more than a "block" without a walker, which was the key factor in the different WPI ratings. The WCAB gave great weight to the ALJ's credibility determinations and found no substantial evidence to overturn them.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedWCJCredibility determinationsGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Permanent disabilityWPIRight lower extremityOrthopedic AMESpecific date of injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ555322, ADJ1127657, ADJ3643619, ADJ3733400, ADJ615070
Regular
Jan 23, 2023

RICHARD CORTEZ vs. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, MURPHY AND BEANE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Paramount Pictures' petition for reconsideration. The Board upheld the WCJ's finding that the applicant was entitled to a retroactive increase in temporary disability payments based on Labor Code Section 4661.5. The defendant failed to provide evidence to support their proposed method of calculating the earnings rate or to establish prejudice for the applicant's delay in claiming the increase. Therefore, the original award granting the increased benefits remains in effect.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsideration DeniedTemporary Disability (TTD) RateLabor Code Section 4661.5Labor Code Section 4453Average Weekly EarningsUnion ContractMotion Picture Health and WelfareRetroactive IncreaseCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08613 [156 AD3d 447]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2017

Rodriguez v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Ryan Rodriguez was injured while working on a movie set. Defendant Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. was the production company. Columbia Pictures moved for summary judgment to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, arguing it was a 'special employer' entitled to the exclusive remedy doctrine of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied this motion. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting Columbia Pictures' motion for summary judgment, finding it demonstrated a prima facie entitlement to the 'special employer' defense, which the plaintiff failed to rebut.

Summary JudgmentSpecial EmployerWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceAppellate DivisionExclusive Remedy DoctrinePersonal InjuryFilm ProductionVicarious Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co. v. Rubberized Novelty & Plastic Fabric Workers' Union, Local 98

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co., Inc. sought to stay arbitration of a labor dispute with Rubberized Novelty and Plastic Fabric Workers’ Union, Local 98, I.L.G.W.U. The dispute arose after Paramount terminated its manufacturing operations but continued dealing in similar products, leading the union to claim violations of collective bargaining agreements regarding work preservation. Paramount argued the court lacked jurisdiction, that the agreement's relevant clause was an illegal 'hot cargo' clause, and that the agreement was procured by fraud. The District Court denied Paramount's motion to remand and for summary judgment, granting the union's motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed federal jurisdiction under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act and held that the arbitrability of the dispute, including claims of illegality and fraud, falls within the broad arbitration clauses of the collective bargaining agreements.

Labor DisputeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementHot Cargo ClauseWork Preservation ClauseFraud in InducementJurisdictionSummary JudgmentNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

The US Department of Justice initiated an antitrust action against Columbia Pictures, MCA, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century-Fox, and Getty Oil Company for forming a joint venture called Premiere, alleging price-fixing and group boycott. Premiere sought to intervene as a defendant, a motion the court granted due to the recognition of its existential dependence on the lawsuit's outcome. Concurrently, nonparty witnesses objected to broad discovery demands made by the defendants. The court postponed the extensive nonparty discovery until after the preliminary injunction motion, citing the voluminous nature of the demands, the potential for undue delay, and the availability of sufficient alternative information.

AntitrustJoint VentureInterventionDiscoveryPreliminary InjunctionSherman ActPay TelevisionFilm IndustryGroup BoycottPrice-fixing
References
10
Case No. ADJ6909720
Regular
Nov 20, 2014

CLICIA MORALES MONARREZ, Alicia Morales Monarrez, Alicia Morales Monarrez vs. PARAMOUNT FARMS INTERNATIONAL, Paramount Farms

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Paramount Farms' Petition for Reconsideration. Paramount Farms contested the applicant's permanent partial disability rating and the indemnity awarded, arguing that the judge improperly disregarded a PQME's opinion and relied on another doctor's flawed assessment. The Board found that the petition was partially untimely, and on the merits, it adopted the WCJ's reasoning that the applicant's treating physician's opinion was substantial evidence, and the indemnity calculation was correct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionPermissibly Self-InsuredParamount Farms InternationalAlicia Morales MonarrezOrder Amending AwardPermanent Partial DisabilityIndemnityDr. Khosrow Tabaddor
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pig Newton, Inc. v. Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan

Plaintiff Pig Newton, Inc. commenced an action against the Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan, Health Plan, and Individual Account Plan, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Plans’ Trust Agreements were invalid and unenforceable. The Defendants counterclaimed for delinquent contributions under ERISA. The core dispute revolved around "Controlling Employee Provisions" in the Trust Agreements, which obligated employers to contribute for Controlling Employees for a specified number of hours and weeks regardless of actual hours worked. Pig Newton argued these provisions were invalid, not properly incorporated, or conflicted with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The Court, applying federal common law and an arbitrary and capricious standard of review for the Directors' interpretation, found the provisions valid, properly incorporated, and not in conflict with the CBAs, concluding that Szekely (Pig Newton's sole owner) qualified as a Controlling Employee. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and awarding Defendants the sought-after contributions, interest, auditors’ fees, and liquidated damages.

ERISAMultiemployer PlanPension PlanHealth PlanDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTrust AgreementsCollective Bargaining AgreementsControlling Employee ProvisionsDelinquent Contributions
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wider v. Heritage Maintenance, Inc.

Plaintiff Todd Wider brought an action against his insurer, Paramount Insurance Company, and Heritage Maintenance, Inc., for property damage caused by Heritage's negligent cleaning work. Paramount disclaimed coverage, prompting Wider to sue for breach of policy. Paramount moved for summary judgment, asserting policy exclusions for rain damage and faulty workmanship/maintenance. The court partially granted Paramount's motion, finding the faulty workmanship exclusion applied to damage from August 2004 but not the September 2004 incident, as the rain limitation was inapplicable due to Heritage's role in tarp placement.

Insurance PolicyProperty DamageSummary JudgmentFaulty WorkmanshipFaulty MaintenanceRain ExclusionCommercial PolicyCoverage DisputeProximate CauseContract Interpretation
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 65 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