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

Cruz v. Regent Leasing Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Roberto Cruz commenced an action against Regent Leasing Limited Partnership for personal injuries sustained during a slip and fall. Cruz, a superintendent, was an employee of Mid-State Management Corp., hired by Regent Leasing to manage the property. Defendant Regent Leasing moved for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusivity of workers' compensation benefits precluded the action, suggesting plaintiff should be deemed their employee. The court denied the motion, finding no employer-employee or co-employer relationship between Cruz and Regent Leasing. The decision clarified that merely hiring an employer to manage premises does not establish an employer-employee relationship within the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Slip and FallPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCo-EmployerManaging AgentLandowner LiabilityPremises Liability
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kalish & Rice, Inc. v. Regent Air Corp.

Kalish & Rice, Inc. (K&R), an advertising and marketing firm, sought summary judgment against Regent Air Corporation (Regent) for $260,000 owed for services. Regent sent an unsecured promissory note for this amount, which K&R retained for 63 days before explicitly rejecting it. Regent contended that K&R's retention constituted acceptance, thus suspending the underlying obligation under Uniform Commercial Code Section 3-802. However, the court, applying Pennsylvania common law of contracts, ruled that silence is not considered acceptance unless specific circumstances create a duty to respond, which were not present here. Since K&R did not accept the note, UCC Section 3-802 was inapplicable. Consequently, K&R was granted summary judgment.

Contract LawSummary JudgmentPromissory NoteOffer and AcceptanceUniform Commercial CodeChoice of LawDiversity JurisdictionPennsylvania LawAdvertising ServicesDebt Dispute
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cerminaro v. Board of Regents

The case concerns a petitioner, a licensed registered nurse, who challenged the revocation of her license due to professional misconduct, including sexual contact with a patient and co-workers. Initially, a hearing panel found her guilty based on a "substantial legal evidence" standard. However, during the process, the Education Law was amended to require a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. While the initial panel failed to apply the stricter standard, the Regents Review Committee and the Board of Regents applied the correct standard during their review and affirmed the findings of guilt, recommending license revocation. The court confirmed this determination, finding sufficient evidence to support the decision and concluding that the procedural error was remedied by the subsequent reviews.

professional misconductnurse licenselicense revocationstandard of proofpreponderance of evidencesubstantial legal evidenceEducation Law violationsBoard of Regents decisionsexual misconduct chargesadministrative appeal
References
7
Case No. 82-0021
Regular Panel Decision

Fraticelli v. Dow Chemical Co.

The case involves three civilian employees (Fraticelli, Oshita, Takatsuki) of the University of Hawaii who sued manufacturers of Agent Orange, the US, and the University's former Regents, alleging harm from exposure to Agent Orange in 1966-67. The plaintiffs developed various illnesses, which they attributed to Agent Orange exposure. The court denied class certification and found that claims against the chemical companies and former Regents were barred by Hawaii's two-year statute of limitations and, for the Regents, by the receipt of workers' compensation. Crucially, the court found no admissible evidence that Agent Orange caused the plaintiffs' illnesses, citing issues with expert testimony and the presence of other risk factors. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the action was dismissed.

Agent OrangeHerbicide ExposureToxic ChemicalsProduct LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationCausation DefenseSummary JudgmentClass Action DenialFederal Tort Claims Act
References
4
Case No. ADJ10802982
Regular
Feb 28, 2020

John Klimkiewicz vs. Regents of the University of California

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the administrative law judge's finding that the applicant was employed by "University of California, Irvine." The Board judicially noticed that the Regents of the University of California is the sole legal employer, encompassing all its campuses, including UC Irvine. Consequently, the applicant's civil settlement with the Regents was not with a "third party," and the defendant's petition for a third-party credit was denied. The Board affirmed the finding of no industrial injury to the chest, arms, or sleep disorder.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationThird Party CreditLabor Code section 3861Labor Code section 3856Regents of the University of CaliforniaUniversity of California IrvineJudicial NoticePermissibly Self-InsuredIndustrial Injury
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Tartakoff v. New York State Education Department

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviewed a determination by the Board of Regents to suspend a licensed clinical social worker's license for two years due to professional misconduct. The petitioner was accused of negligence, incompetence, and unprofessional conduct, specifically for socializing with clients and failing to maintain accurate records between October 2004 and June 2008. The Hearing Panel and Regents Review Committee found the petitioner guilty, leading to a modified penalty of a five-year suspension, with part stayed, and five years of probation. The petitioner challenged the determination, arguing improper admission of client records due to social worker privilege and unfair hearing due to counsel disqualification. The court upheld the determination, finding no violation of privilege and affirming the disqualification of counsel due to a conflict of interest. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings and the penalty was not disproportionate.

Professional MisconductSocial Worker LicenseLicense SuspensionCPLR Article 78Board of RegentsNew York State Education DepartmentClient ConfidentialityConflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationSubstantial Evidence Review
References
9
Case No. ADJ5738297
Regular
Apr 13, 2011

Douglas Riedo vs. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, UCSB & SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for removal and rescinded an order compelling attendance at a medical evaluation. The WCAB found that the employer failed to comply with Administrative Director Rule 32(d) regarding the selection of a consulting physician and rejected the employer's reliance on Labor Code section 4064(d). The Board clarified that parties cannot obtain multiple evaluations on the same issue until they receive a favorable opinion, a practice known as "doctor shopping."

Petition for RemovalRescind OrderLabor Code section 4050Labor Code section 4060Labor Code section 4062Labor Code section 4062.2compensable consequence injuriesorthopedic qualified medical evaluator (QME)Administrative Director Rule 32(d)Labor Code section 4064(d)
References
0
Case No. ADJ4018708 (SBA 0079160)
Regular
Apr 23, 2010

KATHY KELLERMANN vs. REGENTS OF UCSB, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves Kathy Kellermann's claim for workers' compensation benefits, where the administrative law judge initially found a cumulative trauma injury to her psyche but not to her dental, neurological, or internal systems, awarding 8% permanent disability. Ms. Kellermann sought reconsideration, arguing the judge erred by excluding dental, neurological, and internal injuries, acting in excess of powers regarding an independent medical exam, and improperly relying on certain medical reports for disability assessment. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify the scope of injury, affirming the finding of psyche injury but not other systems as a compensable consequence. The Board also upheld the 8% permanent disability award, citing precedent allowing reliance on a single physician's relevant and considered opinion even if inconsistent with others.

ADJ4018708SBA 0079160Kathy KellermannRegents of UCSBSedgwick Claims Management ServicesOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsiderationindustrial cumulative trauma injurypsyche injurydental injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Board of Regents of University

Petitioner, a licensed optometrist in New York since 1981, faced eight specifications of professional misconduct between 1980 and 1985 while employed by American Vision Center. Charges included negligence, gross negligence, practicing beyond authorized scope by administering Neosporin, and unprofessional conduct for delegating responsibilities to unlicensed staff and failing to wear a name tag. A Hearing Panel found petitioner guilty, recommending a license suspension and fine. The Regents Review Committee modified these findings, and the respondent further narrowed the period of charges. Petitioner challenged the determination, alleging denial of due process due to lack of specificity and delay. The Court rejected the due process claims, finding charges specific and no actual prejudice from delay. While the Court found substantial evidence for negligence, unauthorized practice, and unprofessional conduct, it annulled the finding of gross negligence. Despite this annulment, the Court upheld the original penalty, modifying the determination only to reflect the removal of the gross negligence finding, and otherwise confirming the decision.

Optometry license suspensionProfessional misconductUnlicensed practiceDelegation of professional responsibilitiesGross negligenceDue processAdministrative reviewCPLR Article 78Education LawRegents Review Committee
References
11
Case No. ADJ7772639, ADJ5738297
Regular
Feb 13, 2018

DOUGLAS RIEDO vs. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA/UCSB, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Award, arguing the administrative law judge failed to address a lien claim by HealthNet and erred by not dismissing it due to non-appearance. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to specifically address HealthNet's lien. While affirming the original award regarding the applicant's injuries, the Board deferred the decision on HealthNet's lien, acknowledging its substantial balance and the claimant's failure to appear at prior proceedings. The matter is returned to the judge for further proceedings solely on the lien issue.

Petition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeHVAC mechanicPetitionlien claimHealthNetdismissalPetition for ReconsiderationReport and Recommendation
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 65 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