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. ADJ4279077 (SDO 0317244)
Regular
May 05, 2018

TINA BARONI vs. CITY OF OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has removed this case for the stated intention to strike documents filed by attorney Adrienne D. Cohen, who is not of record. These documents, which include notices related to a San Diego Superior Court case and a petition for writ of prohibition, are deemed irrelevant and improperly filed. The WCAB asserts that California Superior Courts lack jurisdiction over the WCAB and that CIGA failed to utilize proper procedural remedies. The WCAB will strike the documents unless good cause is shown to the contrary within ten days.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalStriking DocumentsEAMS RecordCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationReliance National Indemnity CompanyCity of OceansideAdrienne D. CohenNotice of Related CaseWrit of Prohibition
References
11
Case No. ADJ-4279077 (SDO 0317244)
Regular
Jun 09, 2016

TINA BARONI vs. CITY OF OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Decision After Removal ordering the striking of three sets of documents from the EAMS record. These documents pertained to San Diego Superior Court Case Number 37-2016-00006537-CU-IC-CTL and were submitted without objection. The WCAB previously issued a Notice of Intention to Strike these documents, stating they would be removed unless good cause to the contrary was shown. No objections were received from the parties or the identified attorneys.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalStriking DocumentsEAMS recordCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationReliance National Indemnity CompanyLiquidationSan Diego Superior CourtObjectionGood Cause
References
1
Case No. ANA 0347858
Regular
Sep 12, 2008

KEYIN L. ROSS vs. SAN DIEGO CHARGERS and LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION (CIGA), SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, TIG

The WCA's decision is affirmed for two reasons: Kansas City is wrong in claiming that San Diego was self-insured, and CIGA's statutes preclude Kansas City from recovering from San Diego.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGALegion Insurance CompanyKansas City ChiefsSan Diego Chargerscontributioninsolvent insurercovered claimsInsurance Code section 1063.1(c)(5)deductible reimbursement
References
5
Case No. SDO 0249452
Regular
May 12, 2008

GAIL GODFREY vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE ENTERPRISE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION by BROADSPIRE for SUPERIOR PACIFIC CASUALTY COMPANY

The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that the County of San Diego was the applicant's special employer, making them jointly and severally liable for her injury. This determination was made despite a contract stating the applicant was not a County employee, as the Board found sufficient evidence of San Diego's control over her work. Consequently, the County is considered "other insurance available" to the applicant, meaning CIGA is not liable for her benefits.

CIGAcovered claimspecial employergeneral employerlabor brokerageindustrial injuryinsolvent insurerother insurancejoint and several liabilitycontractual exclusion
References
14
Case No. ADJ4357759 (SDO 0267149) ADJ4317475 (SDO 0359844)
Regular
Sep 09, 2010

SUSAN KUJAWA vs. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, NOVATO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied San Diego Unified School District's petition for reconsideration regarding apportionment of temporary disability liability. The Board found that jurisdiction was not barred by the five-year statute of limitations, as the issue of temporary disability remained outstanding until settlement approval. The Board upheld its prior decision to apportion 94% of temporary disability to San Diego Unified and 6% to Novato Unified, based on the Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinion and party stipulations. San Diego Unified's arguments regarding jurisdiction and reliance on the AME's medical opinion were found to be without merit.

ApportionmentTemporary DisabilityPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Stipulations and AwardsJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsContributionMedical OpinionPermanent Disability
References
6
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07262
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2015

Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Ass'n v. County of Westchester

The case involves an action brought by the Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Association and several retired correction officers against the County of Westchester. The plaintiffs sought damages for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement, claiming the county failed to provide benefits equivalent to Workers' Compensation Law for permanent disability. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss but later granted their motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that no provision in the collective bargaining agreement mandated such payments and that the proposed amendment to the complaint lacked merit.

Collective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsLoss of Earning CapacityPermanent DisabilityLeave to Amend ComplaintAppellate ReviewAffirmationJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2002

Bradley v. San-Gra Corp.

The plaintiff, an employee of Lancaster Development, Inc., was injured when a 10-foot concrete ribbon fell on him while he was exiting a building through a window opening during construction. The plaintiff sued, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), naming Rozell Industries, Inc., and San-Gra Corporation as defendants. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and granted San-Gra summary judgment for indemnification against Rozell. On appeal, the court reversed the grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240 (1), finding the statute inapplicable because the concrete piece was not being hoisted or secured at the time it fell. Consequently, the indemnification order against Rozell was also reversed and the judgment was modified.

Construction accidentFalling objectLabor Law liabilitySummary judgmentIndemnificationAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationConstruction site safetyVicarious liabilitySubcontractor liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Unified Court System v. Court Attorneys Ass'n

The case addresses the arbitrability of a dispute between the Unified Court System (petitioner) and a respondent union. The petitioner had designated three newly hired Supervising Court Attorneys as "managerial/confidential," asserting that this classification falls under the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) as per the Taylor Law and not within the scope of arbitration. Conversely, the respondent union argued that the matter should be arbitrated under the Collective Bargaining Agreement's (CBA) recognition clause and general arbitration provisions. The court applied a two-step analysis to assess arbitrability, concluding that there were no statutory or public policy prohibitions preventing arbitration of the "managerial or confidential" designation. It also found a reasonable relationship between the dispute's subject matter and the CBA's provisions regarding new positions. Consequently, the court denied the petitioner's motion to stay arbitration and granted the respondent's cross-motion, directing the parties to proceed with arbitration.

Public Employment ArbitrationManagerial/Confidential Employee DesignationCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Taylor LawCivil Service LawPublic Employment Relations Board (PERB)Arbitrability DisputeUnion RepresentationGrievance ProcedureNew York Court System
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2006

Capital Z Financial Services Fund II, L.P. v. Health Net, Inc.

The case concerns four limited partnerships, collectively known as Cap Z, that invested $100 million to finance Superior National Insurance Group's acquisition of workers' compensation insurers (BIG) from Health Net. Cap Z alleged that Health Net misrepresented and concealed critical information regarding BIG's inadequate loss reserves, leading to significant financial losses when both Superior and BIG became insolvent. Initially, the IAS court sustained a breach of contract claim but dismissed fraud and implied covenant claims. On appeal, the court, applying Delaware law as stipulated in the agreements, determined that Cap Z's contractual claims were derivative of Superior's and therefore lacked standing. The appellate court also found the fraud and implied covenant claims to be without merit, even under New York law, citing disclaimers and Cap Z's own due diligence. Consequently, the court dismissed the entire complaint.

Shareholder Derivative ActionBreach of ContractFraudulent InducementImplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingChoice of LawCorporate AcquisitionInsolvencyFinancial MisrepresentationInvestment LossStanding to Sue
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

The Matter of the Honorable Alan M. Simon a Justice of the Spring Valley Village Court and the Ramapo Town Court, Rockland County

Alan M. Simon, a Justice of the Spring Valley Village Court and Ramapo Town Court, sought review of a State Commission on Judicial Conduct determination which sustained six charges of misconduct and recommended his removal. Simon conceded the misconduct but challenged the removal sanction, proposing censure instead. The Court rejected Simon's contention, accepting the Commission's recommendation for removal. The misconduct included improper use of sanctions, ethnic smearing, name-calling, a physical altercation, baseless threats of contempt against officials, and inappropriate interference in a political election. The Court found these actions to constitute a pattern of egregious misconduct, irredeemably damaging public confidence, and noted Simon's unrepentant and evasive testimony.

Judicial MisconductJudicial EthicsRemoval from OfficeSanction ReviewRules Governing Judicial ConductAbuse of PowerContempt ThreatsPolitical InterferenceTemperament IssuesJudicial Discipline
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 20,561 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