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. ADJ3412693 (LAO 0833154)
Regular
Jan 25, 2016

COLINE ANTOURI vs. WARNER BROTHERS STUDIO, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted by WARNER BROTHERS WORKERS' COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award of 100% permanent disability. The Board found that a prior final determination of no new and further psychiatric disability precluded any compensation based on such injury. Therefore, the applicant is only entitled to medical treatment for the established industrial injury to her lungs, nose, and throat, and nothing further by way of permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardSet Watch OfficerIndustrial InjuryRhinosinusitisPetition to ReopenPermanent DisabilityApportionmentPsychiatric Injury
References
5
Case No. ADJ12304192
Regular
Mar 27, 2023

JOANNA ELLIOTT vs. PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, ADMINISTERED BY GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the WCJ's decision. While the applicant is presumed to have sustained injury AOE/COE for asthma and digestive issues, the issue of lung disease and nose/throat injury AOE/COE was not properly framed for trial. Therefore, this specific issue has been deferred, pending further proceedings. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's other findings based on the existing record.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLung DiseaseAsthmaUpper Digestive SystemNose and Throat InjuryDeferred IssueFindings and OrderMedical Evidence
References
0
Case No. ADJ1497797 (OAK 0293880)
Regular
Jan 13, 2011

IRWIN FRIEDMAN vs. FRANK ROMBAUER CELLAR, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the judge's findings regarding industrial injury to the applicant's respiratory system, eyes, throat, psyche, and resulting chronic fatigue and insomnia. The Board agreed the applicant's permanent disability rating of 61% was supported by the evidence and rejected the applicant's argument that he was unable to compete in the open labor market. However, the Board deferred the Employment Development Department's lien and amended the permanent disability indemnity rate to $185.00 per week.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityIndustrial InjuryRespiratory SystemEyesThroatPsycheChronic FatigueInsomnia
References
4
Case No. ADJ9859900
Regular
Dec 24, 2018

KRSYTOL LARTEY vs. FOREVER 21, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant alleged injury to her throat and voice due to her employment with Forever 21. The defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's finding of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE), arguing the medical examiner's opinion lacked substantial evidence. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the QME's reports and deposition testimony provided a reasoned opinion based on examination and history. The Board concluded that the QME's opinion constituted substantial evidence supporting the AOE/COE finding.

AOE/COEOtolaryngology QMEAlfred N. RovenMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusMRSAIndustrial causationPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJDust exposure
References
2
Case No. ADJ6766227
Regular
Mar 25, 2013

DAVID CASE vs. CITY OF FRESNO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Fresno's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the prior finding that the applicant sustained cumulative industrial injuries of throat/tongue and prostate cancer while employed as a police officer for the City of Fresno. Despite the prostate cancer manifesting after applicant's employment with the City ended, the Board found the City liable based on the long latency period of the cancer and the applicant's presumed exposure to carcinogens during his employment. The defendant failed to rebut the Labor Code section 3212.1 presumption of liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDavid CaseCity of Fresnocumulative industrial injurythroat cancertongue cancerprostate cancerpolice officerLabor Code section 3212.1presumption of compensability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Reome v. Eastern Technical Services

Claimant was initially granted workers' compensation benefits for a throat, chest, and lung condition due to chemical exposure in July 1992. The case was reopened in October 1993 to address further medical issues. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board later concluded that claimant’s condition was not causally related to her employment, leading to the denial of her claim. This appeal by the claimant challenges the Board's finding. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence from the employer's medical experts supported the lack of a causal relationship. The court also reiterated that the resolution of conflicting medical testimony falls within the Board's authority.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipChemical ExposureMedical TestimonyBoard FindingAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionOccupational MedicinePulmonary ExpertEvidentiary Support
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robare v. Fortune Brands, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court in Clinton County, which granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff alleged that they contracted throat and tongue cancer as a result of smoking the defendants' cigarettes from 1961 to 1991. The primary issue on appeal was whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel should prevent the defendants from using the three-year statute of limitations as a defense. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish grounds for equitable estoppel. This was because the plaintiff had timely awareness of the facts requiring further inquiry before the statute of limitations expired, and did not demonstrate a unique fiduciary relationship with the defendants.

Equitable EstoppelStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentCancer LitigationSmoking Related IllnessFiduciary RelationshipMisrepresentationAppellate ReviewCivil Procedure
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackman v. Schembri

The petitioner's dismissal from his correction officer position by the Correction Commissioner, based on a drug test, was unanimously confirmed. The court found substantial evidence to support the reasonable suspicion justifying the drug test, citing the Health Management Division physician's observations of alcohol on petitioner's breath, nasal congestion, swollen glands, throat soreness, and nystagmus, indicative of substance abuse. Additionally, the petitioner's agitated and hostile behavior in the waiting room contributed to the suspicion. The court also determined that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the refusal to grant an adjournment, as he had failed to appear for two previous hearings, his attorney could not explain his absence, and there was no indication he would appear at a later date. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the CPLR Article 78 proceeding was dismissed.

correction officer dismissaldrug testingreasonable suspiciondue processadjournment denialsubstance abusenystagmusadministrative reviewemployment terminationmedical examination findings
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2006

United States v. Henderson

Defendant Henderson, facing a triple-murder drug racketeering capital case, invoked 18 U.S.C. § 3432, seeking a list of witnesses and their addresses. The Government provided witness names but withheld addresses for 27 individuals, citing safety concerns as permitted by the statute. After a hearing on October 30, 2006, the Court, presided over by District Judge Owen, found sufficient evidence that disclosing the addresses could jeopardize the life or safety of witnesses and jurors, given the violent nature of the alleged crimes by the 'Murder Unit' drug gang. The Court noted the defendants' alleged involvement in a triple throat-slitting homicide during a drug robbery and attempts to obstruct justice, alongside a history of violence by the 'Murder Unit.' Consequently, the defendant's objection to the nondisclosure of witness addresses was denied, affirming the Government's position.

Capital caseWitness safetyDrug racketeeringMurderFederal procedureJury selectionNondisclosureOrganized crimeViolent crimeCourt order
References
1
Showing 1-9 of 9 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