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
Feb 24, 2006

Hatfill v. Foster

This decision and order revisits the choice of substantive law in a libel case filed by Dr. Steven Hatfill against Conde Nast Publications, Donald Foster, and The Reader's Digest Association, concerning articles published about the 2001 anthrax attacks. Initially, the court had determined Virginia law applied. However, after further jurisdictional discovery revealed that plaintiff Hatfill had made misrepresentations about his domicile, the court reversed its prior ruling. It concluded that Hatfill was domiciled in Washington D.C. at the time of the articles' publication, and therefore, Washington D.C. law will govern the substantive issues for all defendants. Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause why their pro hac vice status should not be revoked due to these alleged misrepresentations and omissions of material facts regarding their client's domicile.

LibelDefamationChoice of LawDomicile DeterminationJurisdictional DiscoveryMisrepresentation to CourtPro Hac Vice RevocationForum ShoppingSingle Publication RuleConflict of Laws
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stone v. Williams

Robert Stone was injured at a Merit service station in Staten Island on April 3, 1977, when he was struck by a car driven by Kerry Williams. A jury assessed Stone's damages at $200,000 and apportioned 20% liability to the Merit service station defendants. The dissenting opinion argues against the majority's view that the service station owed no duty to direct traffic and that its negligence was not a causative factor. Justice Gibbons contends that the service station had a duty of reasonable care to its patrons and that the jury's finding of negligence and proximate cause, based on inadequate staffing and failure to control traffic, was supported by the evidence. He also argues that the $200,000 damage award was not excessive, citing the severity of Stone's injuries, including a broken leg, a mangled hand with a shattered middle finger, and the amputation of a ring finger, resulting in a 40-50% permanent loss of use of his left hand.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityDuty of CareProximate CauseForeseeabilityJury VerdictDamagesExcessive DamagesAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. ADJ8255413, ADJ8255415, ADJ8255416, ADJ8684388
Regular
Nov 02, 2016

LERHONE WILLIAMS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in four sentences: The applicant, LeRhone Williams, filed a Petition for Disqualification seeking a new judge, alleging bias due to a factual error in a prior report and denial of an examination. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition, the judge's report, and the applicant's supplemental response. The WCAB found the petition procedurally deficient for lacking a sworn declaration and substantive merit, as alleged errors do not establish bias. Consequently, the WCAB denied the Petition for Disqualification on both procedural and substantive grounds.

WCABPetition for DisqualificationLabor Code section 5311Code of Civil Procedure section 641WCJin pro peraffidavitdeclarationbiasprejudice
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2006

Southerland v. City of New York

Plaintiff Sonny Southerland, Sr., on behalf of himself and his children, sued the City of New York and caseworker Timothy Woo under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations stemming from the removal of his children from his custody in 1997. The plaintiffs claimed unlawful search and seizure, and procedural and substantive due process violations related to the investigation and emergency removal of the children by ACS caseworker Woo. The court addressed Woo's qualified immunity defense for each claim, finding him entitled to qualified immunity due to the lack of clearly established law at the time of the events or the objective reasonableness of his actions. Furthermore, the court found summary judgment appropriate on the merits of Southerland's Fourth Amendment and substantive due process claims, and the plaintiff children's unlawful search claim. Finally, the City of New York was also granted summary judgment, as plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a municipal policy or deliberate indifference in training that caused the alleged constitutional deprivations.

42 U.S.C. § 1983Qualified ImmunityFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentProcedural Due ProcessSubstantive Due ProcessChild Protective ServicesChild RemovalSummary JudgmentMunicipal Liability
References
55
Case No. ADJ9724977
Regular
Mar 17, 2017

STACEE BARBATO vs. FRESNO HEART SURGICAL HOSPITAL, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both Stacee Barbato's petition for reconsideration and petition for removal. The Board found the underlying decision was not "final" as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, not substantive rights or liabilities. Furthermore, even if treated as a removal petition, it was dismissed as untimely, having been filed after the statutory deadline. The Board adopted the judge's report and would have denied the petition on the merits if it had been timely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionTimeliness
References
4
Case No. SAL 112739
Regular
Mar 04, 2008

DANIEL DUARTE vs. GENERAL VINEYARDS/MCFARLAND & SONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision, as required by Labor Code § 5900(a). The order in question allowed an applicant's QME report and reopened the record for a supplemental report, neither of which determined substantive liability. Even if treated as a petition for removal, it was denied on the merits for failing to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJQME reportDr. KneaplerAOE/COELabor Code § 5900
References
7
Case No. ADJ4330106 (LBO 0374013)
Regular
Feb 06, 2014

VICTORIA WILLIAMS vs. RANCHO SANTIAGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Victoria Williams. The WCAB determined that the petition was not properly before it because it sought reconsideration of an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order that determines substantive rights. Such pre-trial orders are not subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900. Even if the petition had addressed a final order, it would have been denied on the merits based on the WCJ's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityPre-trial OrderEvidenceDiscoveryVenue
References
5
Case No. ADJ9223025, ADJ7293685, ADJ8949518
Regular
May 07, 2054

DONALD SMITH vs. ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS, CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration in this case. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely, improperly served, and lacking substantive merit. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, which found the petition did not provide grounds to set aside the prior Order Approving Compromise and Release, as that order was supported by substantial medical evidence. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was formally dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedUntimelyNot Properly ServedSkeletalOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseQualified Medical EvaluationDr. McCoySubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ7699422
Regular
Oct 23, 2013

MARIELENA VENTURA vs. CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CASINO, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final interlocutory order, not a substantive decision. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Even if the order were appealable, reconsideration would have been denied on the merits due to the applicant's failure to establish good cause for missing a lien trial. Therefore, the petition was dismissed and removal denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrdersSubstantive RightRemovalAdministrative Law JudgeLien TrialGood CauseNotice of Intention to DismissWCAB
References
10
Case No. ADJ9343159, ADJ1368987 (MON0362038)
Regular
Sep 15, 2017

JAMES ISAAC vs. UNITED AIRLINES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed United Airlines' petition as procedurally improper. United Airlines filed a "Petition to Set Aside Order Approving Compromise and Release" instead of the correct "Petition for Reconsideration." The WCAB will return the matter to the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to address United Airlines' original petition. This ruling does not substantively rule on the merits of setting aside the compromise and release.

Petition to Set AsideOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJDismissedGallagher Bassett ServicesUnited AirlinesADJ9343159ADJ1368987
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,548 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