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. Motion sequence Nos. 002 and 005
Regular Panel Decision

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.

UMG Recordings, Inc. sued Escape Media Group, Inc. for common-law copyright infringement and unfair competition. Escape asserted DMCA safe harbor and CDA preemption defenses, along with Donnelly Act and tortious interference counterclaims. The court denied UMG's motion to dismiss the DMCA safe harbor defense, ruling it applies to pre-1972 recordings. However, the court granted UMG's motion to dismiss the CDA preemption defense, clarifying that the CDA's intellectual property exemption covers both federal and state laws. Additionally, Escape's Donnelly Act counterclaim was dismissed, but UMG's motions to dismiss the tortious interference counterclaims were denied, rejecting defenses like the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and economic interest.

Copyright InfringementDMCA Safe HarborPre-1972 RecordingsUnfair CompetitionCommunications Decency ActTortious InterferenceDonnelly ActNew York Common LawInternet Service ProvidersAntitrust
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mamone v. Griege

The case involves an appeal concerning a Workers' Compensation Board decision, filed July 21, 1978, which denied an employer and its insurance carrier's application to proceed on a shortened record for their primary appeal. The primary claim stemmed from a 1957 accident leading to the claimant's total and permanent disability, with the Board later modifying a referee's decision to award nursing services retroactive to 1974. The appellants sought to exclude certain medical reports and hearing minutes from the shortened record, but the Board found these necessary for a proper review. The court affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting arguments that the Board erred in not holding a hearing (citing its discretion under 12 NYCRR 300.18 (d)) and that its denial was arbitrary or an abuse of discretion, concluding the Board's decision was reasonable.

shortened recordappellate procedureWorkers' Compensation Boarddiscretionary powermedical evidencetotal permanent disabilitynursing servicesprocedural errorarbitrary and capriciousadministrative appeal
References
1
Case No. ADJ3944879 (MON 0349000)
Regular
Mar 10, 2009

GEORGE WILSON vs. WALGREENS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration due to a deficient record lacking proper admission of evidence and clear articulation of issues decided by the WCJ. The Board rescinded the prior Findings and Award, finding that the record did not comply with requirements for presenting issues, stipulations, and admitted evidence. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision to ensure a properly developed record.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary Total DisabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerMaximal Medical ImprovementRecord DeficienciesHamilton v. LockheedRescindReturn to Trial Level
References
2
Case No. ADJ7448890, ADJ7816111
Regular
Nov 08, 2012

ELMER SALAZAR MUNOZ vs. DENNY'S RESTAURANT, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award due to an incomplete and unorganized case record. Despite the judge admitting medical reports, they were not present in the electronic system for review. The Board found this failure to maintain a proper record hindered their ability to consider the defendant's petition. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for proper record preparation and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJCumulative Trauma InjuryPrima Facie CaseAdmissible Medical ReportsEAMSReport and Recommendation
References
1
Case No. ADJ8733591
Regular
Mar 13, 2017

ANELLA MILES vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the original order. The WCAB found the original order, which replaced a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) for alleged unavailability for deposition, was improperly issued due to a lack of a proper record. The WCAB emphasized that a complete record, including stipulations and admitted evidence, is essential for decisions. Therefore, the case was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings with a proper evidentiary record.

Petition for RemovalReplacement QME PanelWCJDepositionCal. Code Regs. §35.5PrejudiceIrreparable HarmMSC Minutes of HearingRule 35.5(f)Mandatory Settlement Conference
References
1
Case No. ADJ7511305
Regular
Nov 29, 2010

BENNETT IORNS vs. R & L BROSAMER, INC., SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision regarding a reopened claim for deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The Board found the original record inadequate and the Arbitrator's decision lacked proper explanation and proper procedure. The matter was returned for further development of the medical record, including a new Independent Medical Evaluator evaluation, and for a new decision after proper submission. This ensures due process and a clear evidentiary basis for future rulings.

Petition for ReconsiderationNew and Further DisabilityDeep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)Waiver of IssueDue ProcessIndependent Medical Evaluator (IME)Summary of EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceHamilton v. LockheedAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
References
4
Case No. ADJ3271284 (OAK 0337357)
Regular
Aug 16, 2010

EDGARDO HERRERA vs. COASTAL CONSTRUCTION & LUMBER CO., INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for removal because the challenged WCJ order definitively determined substantive rights regarding medical costs and report admissibility, making reconsideration the proper procedural route. On its own motion, the Board granted reconsideration due to a deficient record and potential due process violations. The Board rescinded the prior order, finding insufficient evidence, lack of a proper opinion, and lack of notice to all affected lien claimants. The case was returned to the trial level for proper notice, record-keeping, and reasoned decision-making.

Petition for removalReconsiderationExpedited hearingSelf-procured medical costsInadmissible reportsDeprivation of due processMedical provider network (MPN)Substantive issueInterests of justiceInsufficient record
References
7
Case No. ADJ12084466
Regular
Oct 08, 2019

ROBERT CLARK vs. COUNTY OF PLACER, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES

Applicant claimed a psyche injury from his employment as a deputy sheriff, alleging multiple events including witnessing a civilian suicide. The WCJ ordered defendant to produce dashboard camera footage of the suicide after applicant complied with Public Records Act (PRA) procedures, and allowed applicant to then inform the QME of the video's contents. Defendant sought removal, arguing the order bypasses the PRA's requirement for agencies to determine record disclosability and causes irreparable harm. The WCAB granted removal, rescinded the order, and returned the matter for the WCJ to ensure proper PRA procedures are followed, allowing proper determination of record disclosability before release.

Petition for RemovalGovernment CodePublic Records ActDashboard Camera VideosIndustrial InjuryPsycheDeputy SheriffIrreparable HarmDue ProcessQualified Medical Evaluator
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Police v. Charles Q.

A State Trooper, acquitted of criminal charges, had his criminal records sealed. His employer, the State Police (petitioner), subsequently sought to unseal these records for use in a disciplinary proceeding. The County Court initially granted the application to unseal. On appeal, the court reversed the County Court's order, ruling that the State Police, when conducting a disciplinary proceeding against one of its employees, is not acting as a 'law enforcement agency' under CPL 160.50 (1) (d) (ii) and thus has no statutory right to access sealed records. Furthermore, the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the 'compelling demonstration' required for exercising the court's inherent power to unseal records, as it did not demonstrate that other investigative avenues had been exhausted or were unavailable. Consequently, the application to unseal the records was denied.

Sealed recordsCriminal Procedure Law 160.50Disciplinary proceedingState TrooperPublic employerLaw enforcement agencyInherent court powerUnsealing recordsAppellate reviewAdministrative determination
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mister Vee Productions, Inc. v. LeBlanc

This case involves a dispute over copyright infringement and breach of contract. Three corporations—Mister Vee, Delightful, and Vigor—sued individuals known as The Rhythm Makers, Paul Service, and corporations Arista Records, G.Q. Publishing, and Arista Music. Delightful alleged copyright infringement for the song 'Soul On Your Side.' Mister Vee and Vigor claimed The Rhythm Makers breached an exclusive agreement by recording other songs with Arista. The court addressed defendants' motion to dismiss non-copyright claims due to lack of pendent jurisdiction. The court ultimately declined jurisdiction and dismissed the state law claims, finding they did not share a 'common nucleus of operative fact' with the federal copyright claim.

Copyright InfringementBreach of ContractPendent JurisdictionFederal CourtState Law ClaimsMusic Industry DisputeExclusive Recording AgreementMotion to DismissJudicial EconomyCommon Nucleus of Operative Fact
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 6,579 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