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. ADJ4188630 (ANA 0407449) ADJ4338975 (ANA 0407448)
Regular
Mar 22, 2010

RANDOLPH ADAIR vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON; Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves applicant Randolph Adair's industrial injury claim against Southern California Edison. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award due to disputes over the permanent disability rating. Specifically, the defendant argued the judge improperly relied on a "range of evidence" method, rather than strictly applying the AMA Guides, when evaluating medical reports on spinal translation. The Board found insufficient substantial medical evidence to support the judge's permanent disability rating and remanded the case for further medical development, potentially through an Agreed Medical Examiner. The defendant's liability for self-procured medical treatment, however, was upheld.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardSouthern California EdisonRandolph AdairJoint Findings Award and OrdersAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityAMA GuidesDRE CategoriesWPIAgreed Medical Examiner
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Minjak Co. v. Randolph

A landlord initiated a nonpayment proceeding against tenants Randolph and Kikuchi for a loft space in Manhattan. The tenants counterclaimed for breach of warranty of habitability, partial constructive eviction, and sought punitive damages and attorney's fees due to severe conditions caused by landlord's renovations and a fifth-floor tenant's business, rendering two-thirds of the loft (music studio) unusable. A Civil Court jury awarded significant rent abatements and $20,000 in punitive damages, later reduced to $5,000, and $5,000 in attorney's fees. The Appellate Term reversed, holding constructive eviction required full abandonment and striking punitive damages. This court reversed the Appellate Term, affirming the doctrine of partial constructive eviction, reinstating the punitive damages award (as reduced by the Civil Court), and confirming the award of attorney's fees, with a minor adjustment to the rent abatement period.

Constructive EvictionPartial EvictionWarranty of HabitabilityPunitive DamagesAttorney's FeesNonpayment ProceedingLandlord-Tenant LawResidential LoftsBuilding RenovationsTenant Rights
References
12
Case No. ADJ4188630 (ANA 0407449), ADJ4338975 (ANA 0407448)
Regular
Jun 07, 2010

Randolph Adair vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON; Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding their prior decision to rescind the award for permanent disability. The Board found the administrative law judge impermissibly used a "range of evidence" approach to determine the Whole Person Impairment (WPI) rating, which is a medical determination requiring physician expertise. The case was returned to the trial level for further medical evaluation by an Agreed Medical Examiner or a physician selected by the judge, as the current medical evidence did not sufficiently support the original rating. The applicant's argument that this limits the judge's role was rejected, as the judge's ultimate determination must be based on substantial medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWhole Person ImpairmentDiagnosis Related EstimatesAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical EvaluatorAMA GuidesPermanent Disability RatingMedical DeterminationJudicial Discretion
References
1
Case No. 2014 NYSlipOp 06892 [121 AD3d 481]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2014

Matter of Emerald Claims Mgt. for Ullico Cas. Ins. Co. v. A. Cent. Ins. Co.

Petitioner, Emerald Claims Management for Ullico Casualty Insurance Company, as subrogee of Randolph Meyers, sought "loss transfer" reimbursement from A. Central Insurance Company, an adverse insurer, under Insurance Law § 5105. Petitioner had paid workers' compensation benefits to its insured after a motor vehicle accident and sought reimbursement for no-fault benefits. Respondent asserted a disclaimer of coverage due to noncooperation. The Supreme Court confirmed two arbitration awards in favor of the petitioner, and the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed this judgment. The arbitrators' decision was upheld as rational, construing Insurance Law § 5105 (a) to provide a direct right to reimbursement regardless of the respondent's disclaimer of coverage. The Appellate Division also found that the respondent waived any jurisdictional arguments by fully participating in the arbitration.

Insurance LawWorkers' CompensationSubrogationLoss TransferCompulsory ArbitrationDisclaimer of CoverageNoncooperationAppellate ReviewJudgment AffirmationInsurance Policy
References
6
Case No. ADJ8249857
Regular
Jan 19, 2016

LARRY ADAIR vs. CITY OF SAN DIEGO

The applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award for skin cancer, arguing the permanent disability rating was insufficient and jurisdiction should be reserved due to the progressive nature of the disease. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the original award but amending it to include a finding that the applicant is entitled to the presumption of compensability for skin cancer under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Board found no substantial evidence that the applicant's skin cancer was an insidious progressive disease warranting jurisdiction reservation, as it had been excised and declared permanent and stationary.

ADJ8249857Petition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings and Awardarising out of and in the course of employmentAOE/COEpermanent disabilityreservation of jurisdictionsubstantial medical evidenceprimary treating physicianpanel qualified medical evaluator
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2001

Adair v. Bestek Lighting & Staging Corp.

Plaintiff, a stagehand, was injured when a man-lift fell while she was focusing overhead lights above a temporary stage. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied her motion for partial summary judgment on her Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. On appeal, the order was modified to grant summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and otherwise affirmed. The court held that the activity of focusing already-installed lights did not constitute "erection" or "altering" of a structure within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1), explicitly rejecting the "integral and necessary" test for expanding the statute's scope. The dissenting justices argued that the light-focusing was a required step in completing the construction of the temporary stage and therefore fell within the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1), distinguishing it from routine maintenance or minor alterations.

Stagehand InjuryMan-lift AccidentLabor LawStatutory InterpretationConstruction Site SafetySummary Judgment DismissalAppellate ReviewIntegral and Necessary DoctrineErection ActivitiesAltering Activities
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of O'Neil v. William Randolph Dairy Farm

On March 17, 1975, a farmhand sustained a head injury while cutting wood for his employer-provided residence, which was part of his compensation. The Workers' Compensation Board determined the injuries were compensable and awarded benefits, calculating his average weekly wage by combining his $60 cash salary with $47 in benefits for housing, utilities, and milk. The appellant employer challenged these decisions. The appellate court affirmed the Board's finding of compensability, reasoning that the injury occurred during a normal activity expected given the arrangement of free residence and benefits as additional compensation. The court also upheld the Board's wage determination, finding substantial evidence to support it.

Workers' CompensationCompensabilityAverage Weekly WageFarmhand InjuryEmployer Provided HousingAdditional CompensationAppellate ReviewBoard DeterminationScope of EmploymentInjury Arising Out of Employment
References
4
Case No. SAC 0350983
Regular
Jan 18, 2008

MICHAEL A. ADAIR vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA CDCR-FOLSOM, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a correctional officer's claim for psychological injury stemming from workplace incidents. The defendant contested the finding of injury, arguing specific events were good-faith actions by supervisors. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the incidents were not lawful, nondiscriminatory, good-faith actions. The Board gave great weight to the judge's credibility determination regarding the applicant's testimony and the inadequacy of investigations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedPsychiatric InjuryCorrectional OfficerDepartment of Corrections and RehabilitationFolsom PrisonState Compensation Insurance FundLabor Code Section 3208.3Good Faith Personal ActionsSkelley Hearing
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Phillips v. Kapp

Randolph Phillips initiated a federal action alleging defamation against unnamed defendants for statements made to the Securities and Exchange Commission. After a voluntary discontinuance and refiling in New York State Supreme Court, the action was removed back to the federal court. The court dismissed Phillips' federal claims, concluding there was no private right of action for defamation under the Investment Company Act of 1940 or the Administrative Procedure Act, and the First and Fifth Amendments did not apply to private entities. Furthermore, the court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over state law claims due to a lack of diversity and in its discretion, and awarded defendants $300 in attorney's fees due to Phillips' inconsistent jurisdictional arguments as a pro se litigant.

DefamationSecurities and Exchange CommissionPrivate Right of ActionInvestment Company Act of 1940Administrative Procedure ActFederal Question JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionAttorney's FeesPro Se Litigant
References
11
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