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

Atlantic Casualty Insurance v. Value Waterproofing, Inc.

Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Value Waterproofing, Inc. in an underlying breach of contract and negligence lawsuit. Value counterclaimed, requesting a declaration that Atlantic Casualty was required to defend and indemnify. The court granted Atlantic Casualty's request, finding that Value failed to provide timely notice of the claim, thereby prejudicing Atlantic Casualty's investigation capabilities. Additionally, the court ruled that Value's work on a commercial property was not covered by its residential-only roofing insurance policy, further justifying the denial of coverage.

Insurance disputeBreach of contractNegligenceDeclaratory judgmentTimely noticeCoverage exclusionCommercial General LiabilityResidential roofingPolicy interpretationPrejudice
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1990

Giles v. State Division of Human Rights

Respondent Universal Instruments Corporation laid off approximately 1,000 employees due to a drastic reduction in customer orders. Four female employees (petitioners) who were laid off in August 1985 filed discrimination complaints with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging sex and/or age discrimination. The Division conducted investigations and found no probable cause. Petitioners then sought judicial review, and the Supreme Court annulled the Division's determinations, remitting the matters for further proceedings. This appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's judgments, finding that the appropriate standard of review for the Division's no probable cause determinations was whether they were arbitrary and capricious or lacked a rational basis. Applying this standard, the court concluded that the Division rationally found an insufficient factual basis for unlawful discrimination, as the layoffs were due to economic necessity and the need to retain qualified workers, and the investigative process was fair. Therefore, the Division's no probable cause determinations were improperly annulled.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationAge DiscriminationLayoffsEconomic ReasonsProbable CauseJudicial ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardRational Basis ReviewAdministrative Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Korthals v. Valu Home Centers, Inc.

Claimant sustained back injuries in 2003 and 2009 while employed by Valu Home Centers, Inc. and Spectrum Human Services, respectively. A 2009 independent medical examination apportioned liability for her condition across both injuries and prior motor vehicle accidents. After claimant's 2011 back surgery, Spectrum's carrier requested further action, prompting Valu's carrier to seek a liability transfer for the 2003 claim to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. The Workers’ Compensation Board approved this transfer, ruling no prior request to reopen the 2003 claim existed. The Special Fund appealed, contending the 2009 medical report served as an application to reopen. The court reversed the Board's decision, determining that the medical report submitted in 2009 indeed constituted a timely application to reopen the 2003 claim, thereby preventing liability transfer to the Special Fund.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability ApportionmentClaim ReopeningIndependent Medical ExaminationWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewBack InjuryPrior InjurySeven-Year Rule
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp.

This proceeding sought to annul a determination of no probable cause by the New York State Division of Human Rights, affirmed by the State Human Rights Appeal Board. The petitioner alleged racial discrimination by Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation and United Rubber Workers, Local No. 135. The court ruled that a prior Federal District Court dismissal of the petitioner's identical discrimination claim against the same defendants, under federal law, barred the instant state action based on the doctrine of res judicata. The elements required for establishing a prima facie case in both federal and state actions were deemed nearly identical. Additionally, the court found substantial evidence supported the New York State Human Rights Appeal Board's determination.

Human Rights LawRacial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRes JudicataExecutive LawPrior AdjudicationState Division of Human RightsHuman Rights Appeal BoardNew YorkFederal Precedent
References
6
Case No. ADJ9944770
Regular
Oct 19, 2018

Sam Zavalata vs. Conifer Value Based Care, LLC

This case involves applicant Sam Zavaleta's workers' compensation claim for psychiatric and orthopedic injuries against Conifer Value Based Care, LLC. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the trial judge's decision, finding that the medical opinions from both the orthopedic and psychiatric evaluators required further development. Specifically, issues exist regarding the orthopedic causation of cumulative trauma injury to the applicant's psyche, back, neck, and wrist, as well as the substantial causation of the psychiatric injury in relation to the defendant's good faith personnel action defense. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderPsychiatric InjuryCumulative TraumaPersonnel Action DefenseGood FaithCausationMedical OpinionApportionment
References
12
Case No. ADJ11164231
Regular
Nov 06, 2013

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, (Deceased) vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

This case involves a petition for exhumation and autopsy filed by the dependents of a deceased sheriff to determine the industrial cause of death. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition because the applicants failed to provide any expert medical opinion supporting the necessity of an autopsy, despite multiple continuances in the case for discovery. The Board cited case law emphasizing that exhumation is a sensitive matter requiring substantial justification and expert support to demonstrate its probable value in providing significant information. While the petition is denied, it can be refiled with appropriate supporting evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Exhumation and AutopsyIndustrial InjuryCardiac ArrestArising Out Of Employment (AOE)Occurring In The Course Of Employment (COE)Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR)Labor Code Section 5706Labor Code Section 5707Expert Opinion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saunders v. County of Washington

The plaintiff, a former payroll clerk for Washington County Sheriffs Department, resigned in July 1992. Prior to her departure, she deleted the 1991 budget report and admitted to deleting over 100 other files from the computer system using a co-worker's access code without permission, claiming it was an attempt to demonstrate her value to the department. She was subsequently arrested and charged with computer trespass and tampering with public records, but was acquitted of all charges. She then filed a lawsuit against Washington County for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and defamation. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendant, dismissing the complaint. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding that there was probable cause for the arrest, the defendant did not initiate the criminal proceedings, and the statements in the press release were truthful, thus defeating the defamation claim.

false arrestmalicious prosecutiondefamationcomputer trespasstampering with public recordsprobable causesummary judgmentappellate reviewemployer liabilitygovernmental entity
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tamara B. v. Pete F.

The petitioner-appellant sought an order of filiation to declare the respondent as the father of her child. The Family Court dismissed the paternity petition after a fact-finding hearing, discrediting the petitioner's testimony and crediting a defense witness who claimed to have had sexual intercourse with the petitioner during the period of conception and was accused of paternity by her. Although the petitioner presented strong HLA and RBC test results showing a 99.86% probability of paternity, the respondent's expert successfully challenged the analytical method used for these tests. Subsequently, the petitioner's motion to reopen proceedings to present rebuttal expert testimony was denied as untimely. On appeal, the higher court found that given the high probative value of HLA tests, the Family Court erred in denying the motion for expert rebuttal testimony. Consequently, the appellate court unanimously reversed the orders dismissing the paternity petition and denying the motion to reopen, reinstated the petition, granted the motion, and remanded the matter.

Paternity PetitionHLA Blood TestRBC Blood TestExpert Witness TestimonyStatistical AnalysisPaternity IndexReversal of OrderRemand for RebuttalFamily Court JurisdictionTimeliness of Motion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 1996

Rochelle G. v. Harold M. G.

This divorce action concerns the equitable distribution of marital assets, specifically the valuation of the Husband's law practice and professional license. Following the McSparron v McSparron decision, the court reopened the trial for additional proof on the license's value. The court determined the valuation date for the law firm interest to be the commencement date, July 30, 1992, rejecting the Husband's argument for a later trial date based on market changes. It extensively discusses methodologies for valuing the Husband's law license and enhanced earnings potential, ultimately concluding the marital asset value of the license for distribution is $1,547,000. The decision also addresses the anti-duplication rule regarding the license value and maintenance awards.

Equitable DistributionProfessional License ValuationLaw Practice ValuationMarital AssetsDivorceSpousal MaintenanceDouble CountingValuation DateActive Passive AssetsEnhanced Earnings
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carthew v. County of Suffolk

Plaintiff Christopher Carthew sued Suffolk County and several police entities/officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, failure to train, and due process violations, along with state law claims, following his July 2006 arrest for violating an order of protection against his wife, Beth Carthew. The plaintiff alleged lack of probable cause for his arrest after he entered a commercial building he claimed was his business, despite knowing his wife, who had an order of protection against him, was present. The court found that Officer Vezzi had probable cause to arrest Carthew, based on his wife's complaint, the confirmed order of protection, and Carthew's admission of entering the building knowing his wife was inside, thus dismissing the federal § 1983 claims. Even if probable cause were lacking, Officer Vezzi was entitled to qualified immunity because officers of reasonable competence could disagree on whether probable cause existed. Consequently, the federal claims against Suffolk County (Monell claims) were also dismissed due to the lack of an underlying constitutional violation, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

False ArrestMalicious ProsecutionQualified ImmunityProbable CauseOrder of Protection42 U.S.C. § 1983Summary JudgmentMonell ClaimFederal ClaimsState Law Claims
References
86
Showing 1-10 of 506 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