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. ADJ1479326 (ANA 0411799) ADJ7233578
Regular
Oct 07, 2014

JONATHAN DUONG vs. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board overturned a WCJ's decision to exclude sub rosa surveillance video. The Board found no legal basis for excluding the video obtained in a mobile home park parking lot and a grocery store, as the applicant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in those public areas. The Board determined that the defendant would suffer significant prejudice from the exclusion, justifying removal of the case. Therefore, the sub rosa video was ruled admissible and may be provided to medical evaluators.

Sub rosa videoremovalreconsiderationadmissibilityinvasion of privacyreasonable expectation of privacycivil liabilityworkers' compensation fraudmedical-legal evaluatorworkers' compensation appeals board
References
20
Case No. ADJ1646469 (VNO 0550706)
Regular
Apr 19, 2013

ANDREW HERNANDEZ vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an award for industrial injury to the applicant's low back and cervical spine. The defendant argued the applicant was not temporarily disabled as they offered a modified position consistent with AME Dr. Sew Hoy's restrictions, and that sub rosa videos should have been admitted. The Board denied reconsideration, finding Dr. Sew Hoy's report was qualified and did not preclude temporary disability, especially when contrasted with the applicant's treating physician's consistent findings. The Board also upheld the exclusion of the sub rosa videos due to late disclosure, as required by Labor Code section 5502(d)(3).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAndrew HernandezState Compensation Insurance FundFindings and Awardindustrial injurylow backcervical spinetemporary disabilitypermanent disabilityfuture medical treatment
References
1
Case No. ADJ3995122 (OAK 0343980)
Regular
Aug 13, 2013

ROSA GOMEZ vs. NOB HILL FOODS, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal to address the exclusion of sub rosa films and investigator testimony. The trial judge had excluded this evidence because it was disclosed late and not shown to treating doctors. However, the Board found that the defendant properly disclosed the evidence and investigators at the mandatory settlement conference per Labor Code § 5502(d)(3). The admissibility of the sub rosa films and investigator testimony is now deferred to the trial judge.

Sub rosa filmsremovalmandatory settlement conferencedisclosureevidence exclusioninvestigative reportsLabor Code section 5502petition for removalpetition for reconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05144
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2022

Rosa v. 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P.

This case involves an appeal regarding the summary judgment motions in a Labor Law action stemming from an electrical accident. Decedent Danny Rosa, an employee of June Electrical Corp., was electrocuted while working on an energized bus duct at a building managed by Bridgestreet Corporate Housing, LLC and owned by 47 East 34th Street (NY), L.P. and CIM Group, L.P. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims but denied dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The Appellate Division modified the orders, reinstating the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against 47 East 34th, CIM, and Bridgestreet, finding issues of fact regarding whether Rosa was compelled to work on an energized bus duct and the supervision of the work. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for June Electrical Corp. on indemnification and contribution claims, noting the failure to eliminate factual issues regarding grave injury.

Electrical AccidentLabor Law ClaimsSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyBuilding ConstructionElectrocutionAppellate ReviewDuty of CareCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial Code Violations
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Video Aid Corp. v. Town of Wallkill

The case discusses whether Video Aid Corp. should be reimbursed for an unconstitutional $27,000 water sewer tap-in fee paid to the Town of Wallkill to obtain a building permit. This dissenting opinion, authored by Bellacosa, J., argues that the Appellate Division's order for reimbursement was correct, stating that the payment was made under legal duress. The dissent highlights that the Town unlawfully exacted the fee, impeding Video Aid's business expansion, and that Video Aid's immediate lawsuit constituted "authentic resistance." It draws on precedents affirming that municipalities cannot manipulate responsibilities for revenue generation and that involuntary payments, even without formal protest, warrant recovery, ultimately advocating for affirmance of the reimbursement order.

Unconstitutional feeLegal duressInvoluntary paymentBuilding permitMunicipal feesReimbursementTown of WallkillVideo Aid Corp.Business expansionAppellate Division
References
11
Case No. ADJ4617752 (VNO 0390167), ADJ1668605 (VNO 0470519)
Regular
Nov 01, 2010

ROBERT SCHENCK vs. COLIN CLINTON, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, AFFORDABLE QUALITY MOVING & STORAGE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves applicant Robert Schenck's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. Schenck argued the judge erred by admitting sub-rosa video evidence and by not finding total disability based on Dr. Lavi's opinion. The Board denied the petition, finding the sub-rosa evidence was properly admitted and that Dr. Lavi's opinion lacked substantial evidentiary support for total disability. The Board affirmed the WCJ's reliance on defense medical reports finding permanent disability of 29% after apportionment.

SubrogationSub rosa evidenceMandatory Settlement ConferencePermanent DisabilityApportionmentWorkers' Compensation JudgeReconsiderationSubstantial EvidenceQualified Medical ExaminerDoctor-shopping
References
4
Case No. ADJ387595 (VNO 0552648)
Regular
Jul 12, 2016

JOEL CARDENAS vs. ML ELECTRIC WORKS, INC, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, modifying a prior order by an administrative law judge. The Board removed the issues of penalty, costs, and sanctions related to the disclosure of sub rosa video and surveillance logs from trial consideration. However, the Board affirmed the remainder of the judge's order, which had compelled the defendant to serve the sub rosa materials and produce the claims adjuster and documents at trial. This decision aimed to prevent further discovery beyond the mandatory settlement conference cutoff while still requiring disclosure of the surveillance evidence.

Sub rosa videoPetition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery cut-offDue processIrreparable harmClaims adjusterLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)PenaltySanctions
References
0
Case No. ADJ924734 (MON 0299710)
Regular
Feb 07, 2014

VARDAN ESSAIAN vs. CAD FABULOUS, INC., STATE FARM CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an award of 100% permanent disability, finding the evidence did not justify an unapportioned award. The Board cited concerns regarding the apportionment of psychiatric disability and the impact of sub rosa video evidence on the applicant's claimed limitations. The case is remanded for further development of the record, specifically regarding the psychiatric AME's apportionment reasoning and the vocational experts' conclusions in light of the video evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationAmended Findings of Fact and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentCumulative TraumaAgreed Medical ExaminerPsychiatryOrthopedicsSub Rosa Video
References
3
Case No. ADJ5825581, ADJ9590533
Regular
Apr 13, 2015

ALBERT WAN vs. COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK (SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL), CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied both the applicant's and defendant's petitions, affirming the trial judge's order. The Board found the defendant violated Labor Code Section 4062.3 by failing to serve sub rosa surveillance video on the applicant 20 days before providing it to the QME, resulting in the testimony and video being stricken. While the applicant sought attorney's fees for this violation, the Board found the conduct was a failure to serve information, not a prohibited "communication" under the statute, thus precluding mandatory attorney's fees under that section. However, the Board admonished defendant's counsel for discovery abuses and allowed the possibility of sanctions under Labor Code Section 5813 if bad faith is found.

Sub rosa videoLabor Code section 4062.3Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)depositiondiscovery violationpetition for removalpetition for reconsiderationattorney's feessanctionsDWC Rule 35
References
3
Case No. 161024/17, 595145/20, 595264/20
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2026

Fernandez v. Sub 412 Assoc., LLC

Plaintiff Juan Fernandez, a laborer, sustained injuries when a floating ceiling collapsed on him while cleaning a construction site. The ceiling, constructed by Anfield Interiors, Inc., was improperly installed with steel rods affixed to non-structural sheetrock instead of the concrete slab. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and denied Sub 412 Associates, LLC and 2398 Realty Associates, LLC's motion to dismiss this claim. The Appellate Division affirmed these decisions. The Appellate Division also modified a third order, granting Nucor Construction Corp. summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against it, and granting Nucor full contractual indemnification from Anfield, while striking Aramis, Inc.'s name from that indemnification order.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 200Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon Law IndemnificationVicarious LiabilityAppellate DivisionFalling ObjectDefective Work
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 326 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