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. ADJ10221687
Regular
Nov 13, 2020

LEONORE MUNOZ vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer in four sentences: The Appeals Board reversed a Workers' Compensation Judge's decision, finding that the applicant's psychiatric injury was not substantially caused by lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions. While the applicant experienced distress from work-related events, including a counseling memo and an email announcing a meeting, the Board determined that the email was not a "personnel action" under Labor Code section 3208.3(h). Therefore, the employer's defense that the injury stemmed solely from such actions failed, making the psychiatric injury compensable. The Board rescinded the prior order and substituted a finding that the injury is compensable and not barred by the personnel action defense.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPsychiatric InjuryGood Faith Personnel ActionLabor Code Section 3208.3(h)ReconsiderationCausationPQMEIndustrial StressorsCounseling MemoPersonnel Action
References
11
Case No. ADJ2667325 (LAO 0789144)
Regular
Jul 08, 2014

Brenda Millender vs. Ford Motor Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding Brenda Millender sustained a psychiatric injury due to her employment at Ford Motor Company. Ford argued the WCJ erred in finding actual employment events caused the injury, that medical evidence was insufficient, and that the injury stemmed from lawful personnel actions. The WCAB rescinded the award and returned the case to the trial level. This is because the WCJ did not properly analyze Ford's affirmative defense that the injury was substantially caused by good faith personnel actions, as required by Labor Code section 3208.3(h). The WCJ also failed to consider Ford's documentary evidence supporting its defense and misapplied the causation standard for good faith personnel actions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBrenda MillenderFord Motor CompanyOpinion and Decision After Reconsiderationindustrial cumulative traumapsyche injurypredominant causeLabor Code section 3208.3good faith personnel actionssubstantial medical evidence
References
1
Case No. ADJ6889455
Regular
Jun 10, 2011

SALVADOR RUIZ vs. WASTE CONNECTIONS INC., ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a psychiatric injury claim where the employer asserted a good faith personnel action defense. The Board found the employer failed to prove the personnel action was in good faith, noting evidence of racial animus and inconsistent disciplinary practices. Furthermore, even if the action were deemed in good faith, the employer did not meet its burden of proving it was a substantial cause (35-40%) of the applicant's psychiatric injury, as the medical evidence did not apportion causation. Therefore, the defense under Labor Code section 3208.3(h) was not established.

Labor Code section 3208.3(h)psychiatric injurygood faith personnel actionsubstantial causeobjective reasonablenesspretextualagreed medical evaluatorcausation apportionmentmedical evidencediscriminatory
References
6
Case No. ADJ10908110
Regular
Mar 06, 2019

SHAKE KHACHATRIAN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Legally Uninsured, Adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant's claim for psychiatric injury. The defendant did not deny liability within 90 days, creating a presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 5402(b). However, the Board held that this presumption does not preclude the defendant from presenting evidence to support a lawful, good faith personnel action defense under Labor Code section 3208.3(h). This defense is considered exempt from the 90-day investigatory limitation, allowing the defendant to present all competent evidence regardless of when it was obtained. The case is therefore returned to the trial level for a new decision on the merits of the personnel action defense.

Labor Code section 5402presumption of compensabilityLabor Code section 3208.3(h)good faith personnel actionreasonable diligencecumulative industrial injurypsychiatric injuryDWC-1 claim formsubstantial causejudicial interpretation
References
9
Case No. ADJ6784503-M; ADJ7336025
Regular
Aug 24, 2012

WILLIAM AGUILAR vs. TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

This case involves William Aguilar's claim for psychiatric injury against Time Warner Cable, stemming from two periods of employment. The Administrative Law Judge found Aguilar sustained industrial psychiatric injuries in both roles and ruled the defendant waived the "good faith personnel action" defense under Labor Code section 3208.3(h). While the majority affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the defense was not raised properly and not proven even if considered, Commissioner Lowe dissented. Commissioner Lowe argued the defense was timely raised and that the employer's reassignment of territories constituted a good faith personnel action, thereby barring compensation.

Labor Code 3208.3(h)Good Faith Personnel ActionPsychiatric InjuryCumulative Industrial InjuryReconsiderationWCJ ReportDissenting OpinionObjective Good Faith StandardSubstantial CausePredominant Cause
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2000

Utica Mutual Insurance v. 215 West 91st Street Corp.

Utica Mutual Insurance Company initiated a declaratory judgment action against Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company and 215 West 91st Street Corp. to determine Atlantic Mutual's obligation to defend and indemnify 215 West in underlying personal injury lawsuits. Utica Mutual had initially defended 215 West but later sought to recover costs from Atlantic Mutual. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted Utica Mutual's cross-motion. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that Utica Mutual was equitably estopped from denying coverage after assuming the defense without reserving its rights. Consequently, the complaint against Atlantic Mutual and 215 West was dismissed, and it was declared that Atlantic Mutual was not obligated to reimburse Utica Mutual for the defense costs.

Declaratory JudgmentInsurance CoverageEquitable EstoppelSummary JudgmentDuty to DefendIndemnificationAppellate ReviewInsurance LawNew York LawPersonal Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 1983

Yollin v. Holland America Cruises, Inc.

This case involves a plaintiff who sued Holland America Cruises, Inc. and Holland America Cruises, N. V. on behalf of himself and other passengers for alleged fraud, breach of contract, negligence, and false advertising related to an 11-day cruise. The claims stemmed from purported lack of shopping opportunities at certain ports and an unannounced itinerary change from Bermuda to St. Maarten. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the plaintiff's motion for class action certification, a decision affirmed by the appellate court on different grounds, citing a lack of merit in the claims and the impracticality of class action due to potential mini-trials. The court also modified the lower court's order by dismissing the seventh affirmative defense as moot, while otherwise affirming the original decision. The itinerary change was found to be a reasonable exercise of discretion by the defendant due to a strike in Bermuda.

Class actionCruise contractItinerary changeConsumer fraudBreach of contractNegligenceFalse advertisingNumerosity requirementContractual limitationMaritime law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2001

Smith v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc.

An actor sustained personal injuries while filming a television commercial, leading to an action against BBD&O, Pizza Hut, and Headquarters. The claims against BBD&O and Pizza Hut were dismissed via summary judgment, as Headquarters, an independent contractor, was deemed responsible for the production, personnel, and equipment. The court granted Headquarters' motion to amend its answer, allowing it to assert a workers' compensation defense based on the potential for Headquarters being a special employer. However, Headquarters' request for summary judgment based on this defense was denied, as a factual issue remained regarding the plaintiff's employment status. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed both the earlier order and the judgment.

Personal InjuryTelevision ProductionActor InjuryIndependent Contractor LiabilityVicarious LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionWorkers' Compensation DefenseSpecial Employment DoctrineAppellate DivisionEmployer Immunity
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Ass'n of Plastic & Fibre Workers, Local No. 1 v. Spaulding Fibre Co.

This case involves an action for reformation of a contract where the Special Term correctly dismissed the defendant's affirmative defenses of final resolution of issues and res judicata. These defenses were based on a prior arbitration award. However, the arbitrator's written decision explicitly stated that arbitration was not the appropriate forum for contract reformation, deeming it a judicial function. Consequently, the action for contract reformation could not be precluded by the arbitration award because the arbitrator did not address the specific issue. The court referenced established law that res judicata applies only to issues actually resolved by arbitration, and an award is not a bar to a subsequent action if the issue was not passed upon by the arbitrators. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the order.

Contract ReformationRes JudicataArbitration AwardScope of ArbitrationJudicial FunctionAffirmative DefensesContract InterpretationAppeal from OrderErie CountyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ10434987
Regular
Jan 06, 2023

EZRA CENTENO vs. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION, CORVEL CORPORATION

This case involves an applicant claiming psychological injury, neck pain, headaches, and sleep disorder due to events at Harbor Freight Tools. The defendant argues the injury was substantially caused by lawful, non-discriminatory, good faith personnel actions, which would bar compensation under Labor Code section 3208.3(h). The Appeals Board rescinded the prior award, finding the trial judge used too narrow a standard for "good faith personnel actions" and did not adequately analyze them under the required multi-level approach. The case is returned for further proceedings to properly develop the medical record and reassess the personnel action defense.

Psychiatric injuryGood faith personnel actionLabor Code section 3208.3(h)Substantial causePredominant causeTemporomandibular joint disorderAOE/COEWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardReconsideration
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 9,317 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