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. ADJ2088268 (MON0341079)
Regular
Dec 07, 2012

ERNESTINA MORALES (Deceased), MARIO R. CHAVARRIA, DEATH WITHOUT DEPENDENTS UNIT vs. SHEILA HARTMAN, ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., SHEILA HARTMAN MANAGEMENT CO., BENEDICT CANYON PRODUCTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the compensability of a housekeeper's death that occurred on her employer's premises. The appellate board granted reconsideration but affirmed the WCJ's decision finding the death arose out of and in the course of employment under the "bunkhouse rule," despite the decedent not working weekends. It also clarified that the decedent was employed by Sheila Hartman individually, not by related production companies. The board found no error in dismissing the other companies and their insurer, as this was a determination of employment status, not a coverage dispute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationErnestina MoralesSheila HartmanAllstate Insurance Co.Specialty Risk ServicesSheila Hartman Management Co.Benedict Canyon ProductionsState Compensation Insurance FundWCJ
References
3
Case No. CV-22-2330
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Kurt Hartman

Claimant Kurt Hartman appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. The first decision, filed September 15, 2022, ruled that Hartman did not violate Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by failing to disclose a prior 2015 back injury. The second decision, filed December 2, 2022, denied the employer's and carrier's application for reconsideration. The carrier alleged Hartman intentionally misrepresented his medical history to obtain benefits, but the Board found multiple references to the 2015 injury in medical reports and credited Hartman's explanation that the prior injury had resolved and he did not believe it was pertinent to his 2018 work-related injury. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the Board is the sole arbiter of credibility and its decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation LawMisrepresentationPrior Injury DisclosureIndependent Medical ExaminationCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionSection 114-aBack Injury
References
8
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00477
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2024

Matter of Hartman v. Arric Corp.

Claimant Kurt Hartman sustained a work-related lower back injury in 2018. His employer and its workers' compensation carrier alleged he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by failing to disclose a prior 2015 back injury during independent medical examinations. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found no violation, a ruling affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board determined that there were multiple references to the 2015 injury in medical reports and that the claimant was not treating for it when the 2018 injury occurred. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board is the sole arbiter of witness credibility and its decision was supported by substantial evidence, even if contrary evidence existed in the record.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aMisrepresentationPrior Injury DisclosureCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBack InjuryAsbestos WorkerIndependent Medical ExaminationWorkers' Compensation Board
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheila C. v. Povich

Sheila C., a minor, filed a complaint alleging negligence against the Maury Povich Show and its staff after she was raped by a limousine driver associated with the show. The plaintiff claimed the defendants' negligent acts, including inadequate supervision and instructions to act provocatively, led to her assault. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the negligence and negligent hiring/retention claims, recognizing a duty of care for minors under supervision. However, claims for emotional distress and negligence per se were dismissed, and the slander claim was dismissed with leave to replead. The plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend was mostly denied.

Talk Show TortsNegligent SupervisionChild EndangermentEmotional Distress ClaimSlander ClaimNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionMotion to DismissDuty of CareForeseeability
References
71
Case No. ADJ11664933
Regular
Oct 05, 2020

SHEILA RANCOUR vs. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS

This case involves Sheila Rancourt's workers' compensation claim against Save Mart Supermarkets. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award due to the omission of future medical treatment. Despite the parties not explicitly listing this issue, the Board found that a prior stipulation requiring further medical treatment mandated its inclusion. Consequently, the Board amended the original award to include all future medical treatment necessary to cure or relieve the applicant's injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSave Mart SupermarketsCorvel Corp.Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportfuture medical treatmentLabor Code section 5702stipulationMinutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidencefull adjudication
References
0
Case No. ADJ9267193 (MF) ADJ9267135
Regular
Apr 20, 2020

KAREN HARTMAN vs. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted applicant Karen Hartman's petition for removal and approved a partial compromise and release agreement. This agreement resolves all claims except future medical treatment in exchange for $813,777, less credits and attorney fees. The WCAB rescinded a prior order for a neurology QME panel, finding the settlement fair and in the applicant's best interest. The award includes continued liability for necessary medical treatment.

Petition for RemovalPartial Compromise and ReleaseQualified Medical EvaluatorsNeurologyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code section 5001Labor Code section 5002WCAB Rule 10700Decision After Removal
References
0
Case No. SFO 0500346
Regular
Nov 13, 2007

JAMES HARTMAN vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board is reconsidering its prior order that applied the revised rating schedule to applicant James Hartman's injury. The defendant argued the prior schedule should apply, citing legislative intent and lack of evidence of permanent disability before 2005. The Board, applying the *Vera* precedent, found that the treating physician's report did not indicate a "permanent and stationary" ratable disability, thus the revised schedule applies. The Board rescinded its previous decision, reinstated the WCJ's original finding that the revised schedule applies, and returned the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 4660(d)rating schedulepermanent disabilityindustrial injuryreconsiderationopinion and ordertreating physicianmedical-legal reportpermanent and stationary status
References
3
Case No. ADJ3742197 (SJO 0243687)
Regular
Sep 09, 2015

SHEILA VANZANT LEWIS vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Sheila VanZant Lewis's petition for reconsideration because it was filed late. The petition was filed on July 16, 2015, which was more than 25 days after the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision on May 13, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration outside the statutory timeframe is considered untimely and deprives the Board of jurisdiction to consider it. Therefore, the Board had no authority to act on the petition and was required to dismiss it.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJJurisdictionalService of DecisionMailing ExtensionProof of FilingSubsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund
References
4
Case No. ADJ20774534
Regular
Oct 10, 2025

LACADIA HARTMAN vs. VITAS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, SENTRY CASUALTY COMPANY

Applicant Lacadia Hartman sought reconsideration of an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) after discovering that a utilization review had approved her requested shoulder surgery post-settlement. The defendant had signed the C&R after the UR determination but did not inform the applicant or the WCJ. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as premature, treating it as a petition to set aside the OACR, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings to establish an evidentiary record. The Board emphasized the importance of adequate inquiry into C&R agreements and due process for all parties.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCompromise and ReleaseUtilization ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseAdjudication NumberLicensed Practical Vocational NurseWalk-through hearingProof of servicePetition for removal
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Ben

Plaintiff initiated an action against Michael Ristau and Heart to Heart—Living With Addiction, Inc. Ristau's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was pending when he died. Sheila K. Ben was appointed executrix, and plaintiff's motion for substitution was deemed moot after the Supreme Court dismissed the original complaint. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a new complaint against Ben. The appellate court determined that the Supreme Court erred in applying CPLR 205 (a) because the initial dismissal was a nullity due to Ristau's death prior to proper substitution. Consequently, the first complaint remained in effect. The court further concluded that causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and faithless servant liability were not time-barred, benefiting from a tolling rule applicable to fiduciary relationships. However, the cause of action for common-law fraud was found to be time-barred, as the plaintiff could have reasonably discovered the alleged fraud more than two years before commencing the second action. The order was therefore modified to dismiss the third cause of action pertaining to common-law fraud and affirmed as modified.

Statute of LimitationsPersonal JurisdictionImproper Service of ProcessSubstitution of PartyExecutrixBreach of Fiduciary DutyFaithless Servant LiabilityCommon-Law FraudAppellate ReviewCivil Procedure
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 39 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