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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alfonso v. Pacific Classon Realty, LLC

The plaintiff was injured while employed by D.S. Imports on premises leased by Delmar Sales, Inc. and purchased by Pacific Classen Realty, LLC the day after the accident. The appellate court found that the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Pacific Classen Realty, LLC should have been granted because PCR did not own the premises at the time of the accident. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Delmar Sales, Inc., ruling that it failed to prove the plaintiff was a special employee or that it was an alter ego of D.S. Imports. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Delmar Sales regarding Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims, as it failed to establish it was not an owner or agent.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawLabor LawPremises LiabilitySpecial Employee DoctrineOwner LiabilityAppellate DecisionReal Estate OwnershipLessor LiabilityLessee Liability
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MBB Realty Ltd. Partnership v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (In re Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.)

This is an appeal from a Bankruptcy Court order denying summary judgment for the appellant, MBB Realty Limited Partnership, and granting it for the appellee, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. The dispute centered on a commercial lease, which was amended to include percentage rent and later involved A&P's plan to further downsize, leading to a contested letter agreement regarding new percentage rent terms and property alterations. The Bankruptcy Court found the letter agreement void for lack of consideration, despite A&P's subsequent payments, a decision MBB appealed. The District Court affirmed, concluding that MBB's alleged consent to exterior changes or store downsizing did not constitute valid consideration, as these actions were either not explicitly agreed upon or already permissible under the existing lease terms, thus rendering the agreement unenforceable. Consequently, arguments about ratification or the satisfaction of conditions precedent were deemed irrelevant for a void contract.

Contract LawConsiderationParol Evidence RuleSummary JudgmentBankruptcy AppealCommercial LeasePercentage RentLease AmendmentRatificationGood Faith and Fair Dealing
References
64
Case No. ADJ1357786 (RDG 0126731)
Regular
May 10, 2010

MARK JAMES vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY; PERMISSIBLY SELF-INSURED ADMINISTERED BY SEDGWICK 14627 ONTARIO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Pacific Bell's petition for reconsideration of an award to Mark James. The original award found James sustained a 100% permanent disability due to industrial melanoma, and Pacific Bell argued for apportionment to non-industrial causes. The Board affirmed the finding that the Agreed Medical Evaluator, Dr. Blau, was unable to determine the percentage of disability caused by non-industrial factors due to insufficient information. This inability to apportion, not a failure to consult, meant Pacific Bell failed to meet its burden of proof for apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific Bell Telephone CompanyMark JamesMaintenance Splicing TechnicianMelanomaPermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 4663Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Dr. Robert Blau
References
4
Case No. ADJ347577
Regular
Mar 09, 2011

STEPHEN FLANNERY vs. G & O SERVICES, ODIE PRETTYMAN, PACIFIC BELL, CAMBRIDGE SACRAMENTO, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT, SEDGWICK CIGA GLENDALE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Pacific Bell's petition for reconsideration regarding a penalty on delayed temporary disability payments. The WCJ had previously ordered Pacific Bell to pay the overdue temporary disability benefits and deferred the penalty issue. Pacific Bell argued the penalty claim was resolved under Labor Code §5814(c) upon payment, but the Board found no merit in this argument. The matter is returned to the trial level for resolution of the applicant's attorney fees related to the penalty under Labor Code §5814.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLabor Code §5814.5Attorneys' FeesCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Pacific BellTemporary Disability IndemnityPenaltiesInterestAward
References
0
Case No. 11 Civ. 3705(CS)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2011

Grocery Haulers, Inc. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (In re Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.)

Grocery Haulers, Inc. (GHI) appealed a Bankruptcy Court order denying its motion to determine that an automatic stay did not bar litigation against The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. (A&P) or, alternatively, to grant relief from the stay. GHI sought to bring claims in New Jersey district court against A&P for violations of the WARN Acts and tortious interference, arising from A&P's rejection of a trucking agreement during its bankruptcy. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, finding that GHI's claims were deemed to have arisen pre-petition by legal fiction under the Bankruptcy Code's Section 365(g) and were thus subject to the automatic stay under Section 362. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Bankruptcy Court's denial of relief from the automatic stay, citing factors such as the close connection to the bankruptcy case, judicial economy, and the Bankruptcy Court's expertise in evaluating claims arising from contract rejections.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayExecutory ContractsWARN ActTortious InterferenceChapter 11ReorganizationJoint Employer LiabilityContribution ClaimsJudicial Review
References
31
Case No. ADJ847031
Regular
Dec 10, 2010

CARLOS REYES vs. EL POLLO LOCO, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Carlos Reyes v. El Pollo Loco and Pacific Compensation Insurance Company. The Board adopted the WCJ's report as the basis for the denial. Additionally, the Board corrected a clerical error in the caption of the September 20, 2010 Findings and Order to accurately reflect the defendant's name as "Pacific Compensation Insurance Company." Therefore, the reconsideration is denied, and the caption is corrected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeFindings and OrderClerical ErrorEAMSCaption CorrectionDefendant Name CorrectionIN-HOUSE LITIGATION DEPARTMENTUNIVERSAL ASSIGNED NAME
References
0
Case No. ADJ3110904 (MON 0294776) ADJ3428603 (MON 0294777)
Regular
Sep 18, 2017

KATHY MAJICK vs. HOGAN & HARTSON, LLP, PACIFIC INDEMNITY, FIREMAN'S FUND

This case involves a contribution dispute between two insurance carriers, Pacific Indemnity and Fireman's Fund, concerning a worker's compensation settlement. Pacific Indemnity sought reconsideration of an arbitrator's award finding it liable for 25% of the settlement, arguing the arbitrator erred by not treating the injuries as a single event and by failing to address statute of limitations issues. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration due to a non-compliant arbitration record, including missing documents and improperly labeled exhibits, as required by *Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp*. The Board rescinded the arbitrator's award and remanded the case for proper record compliance and findings on all outstanding issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseContribution ProceedingsCumulative InjuryStatute of LimitationsLabor Code section 5412Labor Code section 5500.5Substantial Medical EvidenceArbitration Record
References
2
Case No. ADJ4517414 (EUR 0036075)
Regular
Sep 13, 2010

, C. AND J. RANDY LINGARD vs. EUREKA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE, by ESIS CHATSWORTH

The defendant, Pacific Employers Insurance, sought reconsideration of a compromise and release order, arguing the payment was erroneously ordered against ACE USA instead of "Pacific Employers Insurance Group." The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because a fully executed amended compromise and release agreement was subsequently submitted. The original order is rescinded and the matter is returned to the trial level for review of the amended agreement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseWCJPacific Employers Insurance GroupACE USAESISAmended Compromise and Release AgreementRescinded OrderTrial Level
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Alto v. 22-24 129th Street, LLC

Plaintiffs Michael D'Alto, Jr. and his wife commenced an action seeking damages for personal injuries under common-law negligence and Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The injured plaintiff fell from a cement truck at a construction site owned by 22-24 129th Street, LLC, and leased to Pacific Lawn Sprinklers, Inc., while preparing cement for delivery. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment for Labor Law § 240(1) claims but granted it for other claims, also denying summary judgment on contractual indemnification between the defendants. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Labor Law § 240(1) claims against both defendants, finding the accident within the purview of the law. However, the court granted summary judgment to Pacific Lawn Sprinklers, Inc., dismissing 22-24 129th Street, LLC's cross-claim for contractual indemnification, as the accident did not occur 'on the demised premises' as defined in the lease.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law §240(1)Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLease InterpretationAppellate ReviewElevation RiskProximate Cause
References
17
Case No. ADJ1124123 (BGN 0064929) ADJ3374432 (BGN 0061307)
Regular
Oct 22, 2018

MARY BAKER vs. SWEEETHEART CUPS; CIGA by SEDGWICK CMS for FREMONT INSURANCE in liquidation and PORTEOUS FASTENERS/PACIFIC INDEMNITY COMPANY, CHUBB INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition for reconsideration, reversing the finding that CIGA remained liable for permanent total disability indemnity and medical treatment for the applicant's industrial injuries. The Board found that because the applicant's injuries resulted in a joint and several award with a solvent insurer, Pacific Indemnity, CIGA has no obligation to pay as "other insurance" was available. The decision clarifies that CIGA is absolved of liability for medical treatment jointly caused by both injuries, but remains liable for treatment solely caused by the September 1979 injury. Pacific Indemnity is now solely responsible for all remaining permanent total disability indemnity and medical treatment costs, adjusting for payments already made by CIGA.

CIGASweetheart CupsPorteous FastenersFremont InsurancePacific IndemnityChubb InsuranceWilkinson doctrinejoint and several liabilitycovered claimsother insurance
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 364 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