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. ADJ9314776
Regular
May 16, 2018

Ken Sutton vs. San Jose Sharks, Federal Insurance Company

This case involves a professional hockey player's cumulative trauma claim against the San Jose Sharks. The employer sought exemption from California workers' compensation jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(d), arguing the player's last employer, the Ingolstadt Panthers, was exempt. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior finding, ruling that the Ingolstadt Panthers were not exempt under section 3600.5(c) as the player did not work temporarily in California for them. Consequently, the claim is not exempt under section 3600.5(d), and the WCAB retains jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Jose SharksFederal Insurance Companycumulative trauma claimLabor Code section 3600.5(d)professional athleteIngolstadt Pantherssubject matter jurisdictionvocational rehabilitationduty days
References
9
Case No. ADJ10229956
Regular
Aug 13, 2018

VIRGIL GRAY vs. ARENA FOOTBALL LEAGUE, SAN JOSE SABERCATS, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE, UNINSURED EMPLOYER BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case denies the defendants' petition for reconsideration of a finding of joint employment for an industrial knee injury. The applicant, Virgil Gray, was found to be a joint employee of both the Arena Football League and the San Jose SaberCats, despite receiving paychecks from the League. Evidence such as the San Jose SaberCats' direct control over the applicant's work, provision of equipment, and housing, supported the finding that both entities exercised the right to direct and control his activities. The Appeals Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision, finding the totality of the record supported joint employment.

joint employmentspecial employergeneral employerArena Football LeagueSan Jose SaberCatsZurich American InsuranceUninsured Employer Benefits Trust Fundprofessional athleteindustrial injuryleft knee
References
13
Case No. ADJ4250207
Regular
Sep 14, 2022

MAHEALANI MAHEALANI vs. CITY OF SAN JOSE, INTERCARE

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits from the City of San Jose. The applicant and the defendant both petitioned for reconsideration of the initial findings and award regarding temporary and permanent disability indemnity and attorney's fees. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address these issues. The Board affirmed the attorney's fees award but amended the findings to credit the defendant for previously paid temporary and permanent disability indemnity payments. Additionally, the Board clarified that permanent disability payments commence the day after the last temporary disability payment.

ADJ4250207ADJ6554121ADJ171328ADJ2689808temporary disability indemnitypermanent disability indemnityattorney's feescompanion casescreditreconsideration
References
3
Case No. ADJ4387448 (SJO 0267422)
Regular
Aug 03, 2010

BALGOVIND SHARMA vs. LAM RESEARCH CORP., MATRIX SAN JOSE

This case concerns applicant Balgovind Sharma's claim for workers' compensation penalties against Lam Research Corp. and Matrix San Jose for alleged unreasonable delay in authorizing medical treatment. Following a stipulation on August 4, 2009, which agreed to authorize specific treatments, applicant sought penalties for sixteen prior, unaddressed treatment requests. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the trial judge's decision, finding that applicant did not "expressly exclude" penalty claims from the stipulation as required by Labor Code section 5814(c). Consequently, all accrued penalty claims, including those not specifically mentioned in the stipulation, were conclusively presumed resolved by the stipulation.

ADJ4387448Lam Research Corp.Matrix San JoseBalgovind SharmaReconsiderationStipulationMedical treatment authorizationPetition for PenaltyUnreasonable DelaySection 5814(c)
References
0
Case No. ADJ7463100
Regular
Jun 13, 2013

MICHAEL SCOTT vs. LOS ANGELES AVENGERS; SAN JOSE SABERCATS; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND; ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a prior award. The Board found that while the applicant sustained industrial injuries as a professional football player, only the Los Angeles Avengers, insured by SCIF, were liable for benefits. This determination was based on Labor Code section 5500.5, which limits liability for cumulative injuries to employers within the one-year period preceding the last date of exposure. Therefore, the San Jose Sabercats were relieved of liability as the applicant's employment with them fell outside this statutory period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Jose SabercatsLos Angeles AvengersState Compensation Insurance FundZurich North AmericaMichael ScottPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Award and OrderWCJJoint and several liability
References
0
Case No. ADJ2846580 (ANA 0334623)
Regular
Aug 03, 2010

TROY DAYAK vs. SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES, BERKLEY SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING MANAGERS, GULF/TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, SAN JOSE CLASH in care of ESIS, SAN JOSE GRIZZLIES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the applicant's cumulative trauma injury end date to December 28, 2004. This decision was based on medical evidence indicating the applicant reached permanent and stationary status on that date, despite continuing to play professional soccer afterward. The Board found that further injury after that date did not increase the applicant's permanent disability. The case is now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

cumulative traumaprofessional athletedate of injurypermanent and stationary statussection 5412section 5500.5period of coverageapportionmentmajor league socceroccupational disease
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00066 [179 AD3d 427]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2020

Matter of Katherine U. (Jose U.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court order finding Jose U. sexually abused his child, Katherine U., and dismissed the appeal from the fact-finding order. The court upheld the use of closed-circuit television for the child's testimony, balancing the father's due process rights with the child's emotional well-being, as contemporaneous cross-examination by counsel was permitted. An affidavit from the child's social worker sufficiently established that in-court testimony would cause emotional harm. Furthermore, Jose U.'s prior criminal convictions for predatory sexual assault, rape, incest, and sexual abuse, involving the child, collaterally estopped him from contesting the abuse allegations in the family court petition.

Child abuseSexual abuseFamily LawAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessChild TestimonyClosed-circuit televisionCollateral EstoppelCriminal ConvictionEvidence Admissibility
References
3
Case No. SFO 0499592, SFO 0499593
Regular
Jan 07, 2008

Hamid Khazaeli vs. SYSMASTER CORPORATION, GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant's petition for reconsideration after the denial of his request to change venue to San Jose. The applicant, now representing himself, argued that the venue change was necessary for him to receive adequate assistance due to his employment in San Jose. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the prior decision which found the employer's reasons for maintaining venue in Oakland (location of witnesses and employer) outweighed the applicant's convenience. The Board noted that the applicant could still seek general assistance from Information and Assistance officers at the San Jose office regardless of venue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationChange of VenueSan JoseOaklandApplicant's RepresentationIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaBack Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ9778324
Regular
Nov 08, 2017

JAIRO RAMOS vs. JTS JOSE TREE SERVICE, INC., JOSE MIGUEL SOTO, DANIEL SOTO, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury. The primary issue is determining the identity of the employer(s), with allegations of joint ownership/operation between JTS Jose Tree Service, Inc., Jose Miguel Soto, and Daniel Soto. Jose Soto's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely and procedurally deficient. Daniel Soto's petition was granted because the original findings lacked evidentiary support and the record required further development regarding employment status and potential licensing issues. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJTS Jose Tree ServiceJose Miguel SotoDaniel SotoUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundFindings of FactOrder of DeferralPetition for ReconsiderationJoint EmployersSubstantial Shareholder
References
19
Case No. No. 92
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2019

Jose Rivera v. State of New York

This New York Court of Appeals case addresses the State's vicarious liability for an assault committed by correction officers on an inmate. The inmate, Jose Rivera, was brutally attacked by Officer Michael Wehby and restrained by other officers, Femia and LaTour. The Court of Claims and Appellate Division found Wehby's actions were outside the scope of employment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Wehby's unprovoked and excessive force was a significant departure from his duties, thus precluding vicarious liability under respondeat superior. The dissenting judges argued that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether the other officers, who restrained Rivera, acted within the scope of their employment, potentially believing they were maintaining prison order.

Respondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityCorrectional Officer MisconductInmate AssaultScope of Employment DoctrineSummary Judgment AffirmationExcessive ForceCorrection Law ViolationsIntentional TortsAppellate Review
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 1,398 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