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. ADJ1560142 (SFO 0418414) ADJ2358122 (SFO 0500361)
Regular
Sep 13, 2010

GENNADY LIUBIMSKY vs. SHERATON FISHERMAN'S WHARF, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant alleging back injury from a 1995 specific incident and a cumulative trauma (CT) ending in 2006. The Appeals Board rescinded the previous award because unresolved issues remained, including the date of CT injury, apportionment between multiple potential injuries, and the applicable permanent disability rating schedule. Zurich, the current carrier, sought reconsideration arguing the CT claim was time-barred. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings to clarify these complex issues and ensure proper application of apportionment law.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGennady LiubimskySheraton Fisherman's WharfZurich American Insurance CompanyADJ1560142ADJ2358122Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationCumulative TraumaStatute of LimitationsPetition to Reopen
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harrington v. Hudson Sheraton Corp.

Nell Harrington filed a lawsuit against ITT Sheraton Corporation, alleging a sexually hostile working environment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and retaliation for complaining about the harassment. ITT moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Harrington failed to name them in her initial Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge. The court considered the "identity of interest" exception, which allows a suit against an unnamed party in an EEOC charge if certain conditions are met, primarily when the plaintiff is unrepresented by counsel. As Harrington was represented by a specialized labor and employment law attorney when filing her EEOC charge, the court determined the exception did not apply. Consequently, ITT's motion to dismiss was granted, and Harrington's complaint against ITT was dismissed with prejudice.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo HarassmentRetaliationTitle VIIEEOC ChargeMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionIdentity of Interest ExceptionLegal Representation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dickens v. Hudson Sheraton Corp.

Plaintiff Ernest Dickens filed an action against Hudson Sheraton Corporation and several individuals, alleging age and race discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dickens claimed a history of adverse actions including denial of workers' compensation benefits, alleged intimidation during a union meeting, and denial of bartending duties. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing many claims were time-barred and that Dickens failed to establish a prima facie case. The court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that most claims were untimely and that for the surviving claims, Dickens failed to provide sufficient evidence to infer discriminatory animus or a causal link for retaliation.

Age DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawHostile Work EnvironmentStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation DoctrineMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie Case
References
126
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re St. James Mechanical, Inc.

ITT Sheraton Corporation (ITT) moved to extend its time to file a proof of claim or to have the notice of appointment of the Creditors Committee deemed an informal claim in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of St. James Mechanical, Inc. (the Debtor). The Court denied both aspects of ITT's motion. The Court ruled that ITT no longer possessed a pre-petition claim against the Debtor because it was discharged upon the confirmation of the reorganization plan, thus making Rule 9006(b) for extending claim filing time inapplicable. Additionally, the Court found that the Notice of Appointment did not constitute a valid informal proof of claim as it was not filed by ITT and lacked sufficient intent. However, the Court determined that despite ITT's failure to file a timely claim, it is still entitled to the treatment outlined in the confirmed plan, as the plan's provisions are binding on all parties, acting as res judicata, even if they contained legal errors in ITT's inclusion.

BankruptcyChapter 11Proof of ClaimExcusable NeglectPlan ConfirmationDischargeDue ProcessRes JudicataInformal ClaimCreditors Committee
References
33
Case No. ADJ1215342 (AHM 0133758)
Regular
Nov 21, 2008

CLAUDIA RAMIREZ vs. SHERATON HOTEL, ZENITH INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's decision regarding a lien claimant's claim for interpreter services. The Board affirmed the denial of the majority of the lien for medical treatment visits, finding the lien claimant failed to prove the services were reasonably required for an industrial injury. However, the Board amended the order to allow the lien claimant $294.00 for interpreter services related to the applicant's deposition transcript review and signing.

Lien claimantReconsiderationFindings and OrderCompromise and ReleaseIndustrial injuryMedical treatmentInterpreting servicesDeposition transcriptTreating physicianMarket rate
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of De Beauharnais-Romanovsky v. Sheraton Corporation

Claimant, a hotel worker, sustained a facial injury in 1982, leading to a workers' compensation claim for a nose injury that was initially granted. Subsequently, he alleged additional injuries, including back, neck, jaw, dental conditions, and hearing loss. After multiple hearings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the jaw and dental conditions causally related. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board overturned this finding, ruling there was no credible evidence to support the causal relationship of his back, neck, jaw, or dental conditions to the 1982 accident, thereby denying his claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that resolving conflicting medical testimony falls within the Board's authority and noting that certain issues were not preserved for review.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipMedical Testimony ConflictBoard JurisdictionAppellate ReviewDental ConditionsJaw ConditionsBack ConditionsNeck ConditionsHearing Loss
References
2
Case No. ADJ2434971 (OAK 0238163)
Regular
Dec 02, 2010

ANA RODRIGUEZ vs. SHERATON PALACE HOTEL, TOKIO MARINE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a finding that the applicant, Ana Rodriguez, did not sustain new and further permanent disability subsequent to a 1997 stipulated award. The judge found her testimony regarding increased orthopedic and psychiatric symptoms to be not credible. Medical evidence from Dr. Edington indicated no orthopedic increase in disability since the award, and the psychiatric disability became permanent and stationary concurrently with the orthopedic condition. Therefore, the judge concluded there was no "new and further" disability as defined by Labor Code Section 5410.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedCredibility FindingGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Stipulated AwardPetition to ReopenNew and Further DisabilityOrthopedic DisabilityPsychiatric Disability
References
2
Case No. ADJ2645182
Regular
Jun 27, 2017

JENNIFER CARLSON-WELLER vs. SILVER'S AT THE WHARF, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant sought reconsideration of an approved Compromise & Release, asserting a change of mind and desire for continued medical treatment. The Board dismissed the petition because the applicant failed to present evidence of good cause, such as mutual mistake, duress, fraud, or undue influence, to set aside the agreement. The Board recommended the WCJ treat the petition as a motion to set aside, requiring a hearing for the applicant to present supporting evidence. Any decision on that motion would then be subject to reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCompromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationWCJStipulationsAwardMedical TreatmentGood CauseMutual Mistake of FactDuress
References
6
Case No. ADJ6786700
Regular
May 26, 2015

MICHELLE LOPEZ vs. SHERATON PARK HOTEL, VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY

Lien claimants' petition for reconsideration was granted because the WCJ erred in disallowing their liens. The WCAB found that the lien claimants' Notices of Representation complied with WCAB Rule 10774.5, as they clearly identified the representatives and met the signing requirements. Because the lien claimants were denied an opportunity to be heard due to the WCJ's improper rejection of their representation, the WCAB rescinded the order and remanded the case for a new lien hearing.

WCAB Rule 10774.5Lien claimantsNotice of RepresentationWCJPetition for ReconsiderationDue ProcessOpportunity to be heardSubstitution of attorneyWCABAdministrative law judge
References
3
Case No. ADJ10037192
Regular
Mar 29, 2017

JEAN MERVILLE vs. SHERATON HOTEL AND STARR INDEMNITY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the applicant, Jean Merville. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, finding that removal is an extraordinary remedy. The WCAB determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denial, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and denied the removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeADJ10037192Gallagher Bassett ServicesSheraton HotelStarr Indemnity
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 14 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