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. ADJ7350346
Regular
Jan 05, 2012

TENNE PHAM vs. HAWAIIAN GARDEN CASINO, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This order denies Tenne Pham's Petition for Removal in a workers' compensation case against Hawaiian Garden Casino and Travelers Insurance Company. The Appeals Board adopted the findings of the Workers' Compensation Judge, denying the removal. Additionally, the Board ordered a correction of a clerical error in a previous order to remove one of the case numbers from the caption. Therefore, the Petition for Removal is denied, and the prior order is amended.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeClerical ErrorDenying RemovalCorrecting Clerical ErrorStrike Case NumberOrder Denying RemovalADJ3545303ADJ7350346
References
0
Case No. ADJ17198125
Regular
Apr 28, 2025

Danny Pham vs. Garff Enterprises, Inc., Zurich American Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendants, Garff Enterprises, Inc. and Zurich American Insurance Company, in the case of Danny Pham. The petition challenged an interlocutory finding related to the applicant's psychiatric injury. The Board concluded that no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying removal, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if needed later. The decision also discussed the application of Labor Code section 5909 regarding the timeline for Board action and Labor Code section 4660.1 concerning the distinction between directly caused and compensable consequence psychiatric injuries.

WCABreconsiderationremovalLabor Code § 5909Adjudication Numberthreshold issuecompensable consequencepsychiatric injuryPQME§ 4660.1(c)
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. v. Estate of Tran

This case involves an appeal stemming from a wrongful death lawsuit. Yi Thi Pham and Do Van Tran sued Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. (TRMI) and Texaco Marine Services, Inc. (TMSI) for the death of their son, Dau Van Tran, who was crushed between a shrimp boat and a dock. The plaintiffs alleged that the tanker TEXACO CALIFORNIA, owned by the defendants, caused a massive wave due to excessive speed, leading to Dau Van Tran's fatal injury. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding damages. On appeal, TRMI and TMSI challenged the sufficiency of evidence for negligence, survival damages, mental anguish awards, prejudgment interest, and the exclusion of their expert witnesses. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Texas state law, not general maritime law, governed the case, and found ample evidence to support the trial court's findings and damage awards.

NegligenceGross NegligenceWrongful DeathSurvival DamagesMaritime LawAdmiralty JurisdictionExpert Witness TestimonyDiscovery SanctionsMental AnguishPrejudgment Interest
References
20
Case No. ADJ16326594
Regular
Oct 31, 2025

Peter Pham vs. Southern California Edison

Defendant sought removal of a WCJ's December 12, 2023 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), which denied their motion for a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The defendant argued that the applicant's email to the QME constituted impermissible ex parte contact. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinding the F&O, and substituting new Findings of Fact that the email was indeed impermissible ex parte contact, thereby ordering a replacement QME panel. Additionally, while earlier QME reports and deposition testimony by Dr. Weiss remain in evidence, her report dated July 22, 2023, was stricken to preserve the appearance of impartiality in the medical evaluation process.

Ex parte contactQualified Medical EvaluatorRemoval petitionFindings of Fact and OrderLabor Code Section 4062.3Appearance of impartialityMedical evaluation processReplacement QME panelPsychiatric injuryStipulated facts
References
14
Case No. ADJ4028210 (SJO 0251585)
Regular
Apr 06, 2009

JENNY PHAM vs. SANMINA-SCI CORPORATION, SENTRY CLAIMS SERVICE

This case concerns a dispute over the reasonableness and necessity of chiropractic and acupuncture treatment provided to an applicant for an industrial injury. The defendant argues the treatment exceeded the ACOEM Guidelines and was not evidence-based. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the WCJ's prior decision allowing the lien premature. The Board rescinded the decision and returned the case for further development of the medical record to determine if the treatment complied with the ACOEM Guidelines. The defendant's petition for removal was dismissed as moot.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCompromise and ReleaseIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBilateral ShouldersReasonable and Necessary TreatmentACOEM GuidelinesLabor Code Section 4600
References
3
Case No. SJO 0251585
Regular
Dec 14, 2007

JENNY PHAM vs. SANMINA-SCI CORPORATION, SENTRY CLAIMS SERVICE

The defendant, Sanmina-Sci Corporation, petitioned for removal, seeking to vacate a trial date due to their counsel's alleged lack of notice for a mandatory settlement conference. However, the trial has already proceeded on the scheduled date. Because the matter has gone to trial, the petition for removal is moot. Any grievances the defendant has with the trial judge's rulings can be addressed through a petition for reconsideration.

Petition for removalMandatory settlement conferencePrejudiceIrreparably harmedMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceLien claimantWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCAB Rule 10843Moot
References
1
Case No. ADJ4664539 (AHM 0118049)
Regular
Aug 19, 2013

KIM PHAM vs. L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CORP., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, Administered By ESIS

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration by attorney Keith Nguyen regarding the division of attorney's fees awarded in a workers' compensation settlement. Mr. Nguyen argued he was entitled to 58% of the $31,500 in fees, but the WCJ awarded him 50%. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was not verified, a requirement for reconsideration petitions. Despite notice of this defect, Mr. Nguyen failed to provide verification or a valid explanation.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAttorney's FeesWCJVerified PleadingsLabor Code Section 5902Unverified PetitionDismissalIndustrial Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hansbrough v. Titlemax of Tennessee, Inc.

Plaintiff Sharon Hansbrough sued her former employer, TitleMax of Tennessee, alleging age discrimination in denying promotions and termination of employment. The Magistrate Judge, Tu M. Pham, recommended granting TitleMax's motion for summary judgment, finding that Hansbrough failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination for both claims. Hansbrough filed objections, which the District Judge, S. Thomas Anderson, found to be non-specific reassertions of facts already in the record. Consequently, the District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, thereby granting summary judgment in favor of TitleMax. The decision highlighted Hansbrough's failure to properly apply for promotions and her inability to demonstrate that similarly situated, non-protected employees were treated more favorably in the context of her termination.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawFailure to PromoteTerminationPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkCircumstantial EvidenceObjections to Magistrate ReportFederal Civil Procedure
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

in Re: Texas Health Resources and Trumbull Insurance Company

Nina Pham, a nurse, contracted the Ebola virus, leading to workers' compensation benefits. She sued Texas Health Resources (THR), alleging negligence, invasion of privacy, and fraud, claiming THR failed to prepare for Ebola and improperly invaded her privacy. THR and its insurer, Trumbull, argued for abatement due to workers' compensation jurisdiction. The trial court ordered the production of a January 15, 2015 claim note from Trumbull's affiliate, The Hartford, documenting discussions with THR's legal team. THR and Trumbull sought a writ of mandamus, asserting lawyer-client privilege. The appellate court found the note privileged under employers' liability coverage, distinguishing it from workers' compensation claims, and rejected the crime-fraud exception. The court conditionally granted the mandamus, ordering the trial court to vacate the disclosure order.

Writ of MandamusLawyer-Client PrivilegeDiscovery DisputeEmployers' Liability InsuranceWorkers' Compensation ActEbola VirusInvasion of PrivacyFraud ExceptionTrial Court DiscretionTexas Law
References
26
Showing 1-9 of 9 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