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. ADJ848157
Regular
Mar 09, 2011

CURTIS THOMAS vs. RAJ TENTS, LLC, SCIF INSURED PLEASANTON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed a petition for reconsideration filed by a party in the case of Curtis Thomas v. Raj Tents, LLC. This dismissal is a result of the petitioner voluntarily withdrawing their reconsideration request. Consequently, the WCAB's prior decision from January 10, 2011, remains in effect.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawn PetitionDismissed PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCurtis ThomasRaj TentsLLCSCIF Insured PleasantonADJ848157OAK 0347928
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yash Raj Films (USA), Inc. v. Akhtar (In Re Akhtar)

Yash Raj Films (USA), Inc. (

Copyright InfringementNondischargeabilityBankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(6)Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentWillful and Malicious InjuryPreliminary InjunctionCivil ContemptStatutory DamagesChapter 7
References
38
Case No. ADJ7333937, ADJ7114879
Regular
Jun 20, 2016

NELSON RAJ vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded two prior awards due to uncertainty regarding the applicant's temporary disability rate and periods. The original decisions failed to establish a clear, enforceable award for temporary disability indemnity, leaving the defendant liable for penalties without a determined benefit amount. The Board remanded the cases for further development of the record to issue a certain award consistent with *Foster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, which mandates concurrent, not consecutive, temporary disability awards. This ensures clarity on the defendant's exact liability and proper application of the 104-week benefit cap.

Petition for ReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityIndustrial InjuryAmended Findings and AwardWCJLabor Code section 4656(c)Foster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.104-week capWage LossDue Process
References
2
Case No. ADJ7818556
Regular
Nov 20, 2017

MARCOS CAMACHO vs. PIREATE STAFFING, LUMBERMEN'S INDEMNITY, In Liquidation, Administered By CIGA, EXCLUSIVE TENT RENTALS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found the WCJ erred by drawing a negative inference and barring recovery based on the applicant's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination regarding Social Security numbers. The Board determined this assertion does not inherently undermine credibility or the claim's legitimacy. Crucially, the parties had stipulated to an industrial injury to the applicant's back, but the WCJ's flawed reasoning prevented any determination on apportionment, making the decision incomplete.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryHipsLower ExtremitiesPsycheFifth AmendmentSelf-Incrimination
References
1
Case No. 88 Civ. 4475 (JMC)
Regular Panel Decision

Daval Steel Products v. M v. Juraj Dalmatinac

Plaintiff Daval Steel Products initiated an admiralty action against the vessel M.V. Ju-raj Dalmatinac and its owners/operators, Europe-Overseas Steamship Lines N.V. and S.P. Shipping Co., Ltd., seeking damages for alleged damage to steel products. Plaintiff moved to compel discovery or dismiss defendants' answer, while defendants cross-moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process. The court granted the defendants' cross-motion, finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the foreign corporations and that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for jurisdiction or justify further discovery on the matter. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery was denied as moot, and the complaint was dismissed against the defendants.

Personal JurisdictionService of ProcessAdmiralty LawMotion to DismissDiscovery DisputesForeign CorporationsTransfer of VenueRule 12(b)(2)Rule 12(b)(5)Rule 37(d)
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Upadhyay v. Sethi

Plaintiff Anu Upadhyay sued defendants Neeraj Sethi, Roñica Sethi, Shikha Sethi, and Ganesh Raj, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state laws for minimum wage and overtime. Defendants moved for partial dismissal or summary judgment, arguing a domestic services exemption and the statute of limitations. The court found that massage therapy performed by the plaintiff was not "of a household nature" and therefore not covered by the domestic services exemption, but a de minimis amount of such work did not automatically render all work non-exempt. Consequently, the plaintiff's FLSA overtime claim was dismissed. The court denied summary judgment on the equitable tolling defense due to factual disputes, opting instead for an evidentiary hearing and targeted discovery to resolve the issue.

FLSA ExemptionsDomestic ServiceLive-in NannyOvertime ViolationsMinimum Wage ClaimsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsPartial Motion to DismissSummary JudgmentHousehold Nature Test
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 1979

Kay-Fries, Inc. v. Martino

This case involves an appeal concerning an injunction issued in a labor dispute between Kay-Fries, Inc. and Local 677 of the International Chemical Workers Union. The strike, which began on July 1, 1979, was marked by violent and unlawful conduct from union members. The Supreme Court, Rockland County, initially granted an injunction to restrain obstruction and violence. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's findings of union responsibility for the unlawful acts and upheld the injunction's core restraints. However, it modified certain aspects related to the number of persons permitted in a specific 'tent area' and clarified the injunction's six-month duration. The court also addressed a jurisdictional issue concerning the trial court's failure to make detailed findings of fact under Labor Law § 807, concluding that this defect was not jurisdictional for the state Supreme Court.

Labor Dispute InjunctionStrike ActivitiesUnion LiabilityPicket Line RegulationsViolence in Labor DisputesConstitutional JurisdictionAppellate ReviewFact-Finding RequirementsLabor Law Section 807Norris-LaGuardia Act
References
37
Showing 1-7 of 7 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