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. ADJ2388348 (FRE 0248294)
Regular
Apr 08, 2011

Rodney Cotta vs. Leprino Foods

Defendant Leprino Foods sought reconsideration of an award finding applicant Rodney Cotta sustained an industrial injury to his right knee on or about September 24, 2007. While Cotta had a prior knee injury in 2002, he received no treatment after 2003. Medical evidence, particularly Dr. Sorenson's report, supported the WCJ's finding of a new injury, deeming it an aggravation of a pre-existing condition, distinct from the prior injury. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the 2007 incident constituted a new industrial injury.

New industrial injuryRight kneeSeptember 242007Reconsideration deniedPrevious injuryStipulated award3% permanent disabilitySpecific injuryReceiving foreman
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodney Sherman v. New York State Thruway Authority

This case involves claimant Rodney Sherman's personal injury action against the New York State Thruway Authority, stemming from a slip and fall on an icy sidewalk. The appeal concerns the application of the storm-in-progress doctrine at the summary judgment stage. Justice Rivera, in a dissenting opinion, argues that triable issues of material fact exist regarding whether the storm had ended and if the Authority had a reasonable period to address the icy conditions. The Authority contended the storm was ongoing, while Sherman presented evidence suggesting it had ceased hours prior due to warmer temperatures and light rain. The dissent concludes that factual questions remain about the nature of the weather conditions and the applicability of the storm-in-progress doctrine, making summary judgment inappropriate.

Storm-in-progress doctrineSummary judgmentPersonal injuryIcy conditionsSidewalk liabilityNegligenceWeather conditionsDissenting opinionAppellate reviewProperty owner duty
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Morrison

Defendant Rodney Morrison was convicted of RICO conspiracy involving the sale and distribution of contraband cigarettes and illegal firearm possession. The State and City of New York sought restitution as victims of the RICO conspiracy. The Court found the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) applicable. It determined that the State of New York is a direct victim, but the City of New York is not, as its claimed harm was not directly and proximately caused by the specific conduct Morrison was convicted of (lacking New York State tax stamps). Consequently, the State's restitution application is granted in part, limited to tax losses from actual CCTA violations between October 1996 and September 2004, while the City's application is denied. The State must submit further documentation consistent with these limitations.

RestitutionRICO ConspiracyContraband CigarettesTax EvasionMVRAVWPAState Tax LossCriminal SentencingFederal Court DecisionProximate Causation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meadows v. PLANET AID, INC.

Plaintiff, Bob Meadows, a 64-year-old African-American and Native-American former trucker, sued his ex-employer Planet Aid, Inc., and supervisors Rodney Carter and Jostein Pedersen, alleging age and race discrimination, FLSA and NYSHRL violations, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, intentional interference with an advantageous relationship, retaliation, whistleblower violations, hostile work environment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and fraud and misrepresentation. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court granted dismissal for NYSHRL, intentional interference with an advantageous relationship, Title VII retaliation, N.Y. Labor Law § 740 whistleblower, and emotional distress claims. However, the motion to dismiss was denied for age and race discrimination, FLSA, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, defamation, and fraud and misrepresentation claims, allowing them to proceed.

Age DiscriminationRace DiscriminationFair Labor Standards ActNew York State Human Rights LawBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentHostile Work EnvironmentMotion to DismissEmployment LawPleading Standards
References
32
Case No. ADJ9038885, ADJ9038884, ADJ9038954, ADJ9038762
Regular
Jan 30, 2019

RODNEY FICKLIN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS INMATE CLAIMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Rodney Ficklin's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed significantly past the 25-day deadline. The applicant's claims of displacement were insufficient to overcome the jurisdictional requirement of timely filing, as the Board lacks authority to act on untimely petitions. Proper service was made on the applicant's attorney, who did not object, and the applicant failed to update his address. Case ADJ9038762 remains open.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsJurisdictional Time LimitOfficial Address RecordService by MailWCJ Report
References
4
Case No. 00 Civ. 7635(GBD)(FM)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2004

Wright v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.

Plaintiff Rodney Wright filed an employment discrimination action against his former employer, Goldman, Sachs & Company, and several employees, alleging disparate treatment, denial of promotion, and constructive discharge based on race under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. Magistrate Judge Frank Maas recommended granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment. District Judge George B. Daniels adopted the Report and Recommendation, finding no clear error. The court concluded that Wright failed to establish a prima facie case for failure-to-promote, constructive discharge, or disparate treatment, and that his Section 1981 and 1983 claims also lacked merit. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

employment discriminationsummary judgmentdisparate treatmentconstructive dischargeTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983race discriminationmotion to dismissfederal court
References
53
Case No. ADJ3651285 (ANA 0387561) ADJ3819613 (ANA 0389318)
Regular
Mar 10, 2009

CHARLOTTE EYER vs. THE HOME DEPOT, SEDGWICK MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the administrative law judge's reliance on Dr. Bluestone's reports for permanent total disability was not based on substantial evidence. Dr. Bluestone's opinions lacked necessary documentation and full consideration of other medical evaluations, particularly regarding psychiatric conditions and apportionment. Therefore, the Board deferred the issues of permanent disability and apportionment, returning the case for further development of the medical record. The award for attorney fees was also rescinded as it was contingent on the permanent disability award.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAwardOrderIndustrial InjuryLeft ShoulderNeurological SystemPsychePermanently Totally Disabled
References
6
Case No. ADJ865311 (LAO 0880913)
Regular
Sep 19, 2016

MARIA AGUILERA vs. COLLINS CHIROPRACTIC GROUP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming its prior decision to reduce her permanent disability from $100\%$ to $88\%$ after apportionment. The Board found the applicant's vocational expert's opinions unsubstantial and contrary to the well-reasoned opinions of the Agreed Medical Evaluators (AMEs). Specifically, the Board rejected Dr. Bluestone's opinion due to a failure to account for duplication in impairment factors between rheumatologic and psychiatric conditions. While one Commissioner dissented, believing the applicant to be $100\%$ permanently disabled based on Dr. Bluestone's findings and other evidence, the majority upheld the apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Order Denying Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Total DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical Evaluators (AMEs)Dr. BluestoneDr. FreemanDr. MajcherDr. Fedder
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Victor G.

This case involves a respondent's motion to dismiss an underlying delinquency petition and vacate prior court orders. The respondent argued that the original March 1993 petition, which charged drug possession, was jurisdictionally defective because the attached police laboratory report, certifying cocaine, constituted inadmissible hearsay. The court, presided over by Harvey M. Sklaver, J., reviewed the legal sufficiency of similar laboratory reports in light of recent precedents, including Matter of Rodney J. and Matter of Enriquillo S. While acknowledging the potential facial insufficiency of the petition under these new interpretations, the court concluded it possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the initial proceeding. The court determined that defects in a petition, while grounds for dismissal, do not negate the court's fundamental competence. Ultimately, the court declined to retroactively apply the Rodney J. rule to disturb orders that had already become final, citing the doctrine of res judicata and finding the petition's deficiency not fundamental enough to warrant vacating orders over a year old. Consequently, the respondent's motion was denied.

Juvenile DelinquencyExtension of PlacementHearsay EvidencePolice Laboratory ReportJurisdictional DefectSubject Matter JurisdictionRetroactive Application of LawRes JudicataFamily Court ProceduresAdmissibility of Evidence
References
37
Case No. ADJ10653999
Regular
Feb 11, 2020

Rodney McMillan vs. CITY OF RIVERSIDE

Applicant, a police officer, sought reconsideration after a WCJ denied his heart trouble claim under Labor Code § 3212.5. The parties stipulated the heart trouble presumption applied, shifting the burden to the employer to rebut it. While the Agreed Medical Examiner identified alcoholism as the probable cause of applicant's cardiomyopathy, he could not definitively state it was the "sole cause" or that employment played no role. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original order, and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the presumption was adequately rebutted.

Heart trouble presumptionLabor Code section 3212.5Rebuttal of presumptionAgreed Medical ExaminerDilated cardiomyopathyNon-industrial alcoholismSole causeIndustrial causationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Order
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 25 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