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. ADJ1478397 (VNO 0547417)
Regular
Apr 29, 2011

SANDRA VENEGAS, (SANDRA VALLES) vs. CHUMASH CASINO, TRIBAL FIRST/CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order taking the claim off calendar was not a final order. Treating the petition as a Petition for Removal, the Board denied it, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCJ initially took the case off calendar due to a sovereign immunity defense raised by the Chumash Casino, a tribal entity. Applicant argued a prior injury finding should preserve jurisdiction and the tribal entity's administrator should not assert immunity.

Sovereign immunityTribal entityWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardJurisdictionOff calendarPetition for reconsiderationPetition for removalFinal orderSubstantive rightsIrreparable harm
References
7
Case No. ADJ837893
Regular
Jun 04, 2009

GEORGE ALBERT JUAREZ vs. BAJA ROOFING, FIRST AMERICAN STAFFING, INTERTRIBAL STRATEGIC VENTURES EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL INJURY AND INDEMNITY, FIRST INTERCARE, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

This case involves a worker injured while employed by First American Staffing (First), a tribal entity, and allegedly also by Baja Roofing (Baja) as a special employer. The Tribal Appeals Court has already asserted jurisdiction over First, and the WCAB acknowledges it lacks jurisdiction over tribal entities like First due to sovereign immunity. The WCAB rescinded the prior findings and returned the case to the trial level, requiring the applicant to first pursue remedies against First in tribal court before the WCAB will consider Baja's liability. This is to determine if First secured adequate workers' compensation coverage as per their contract with Baja, which would then potentially absolve Baja of responsibility.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTribal sovereign immunityGeneral and special employmentJoint and several liabilityRes judicataCollateral estoppelThird-party administratorEmployee leasing companiesTribal Appeals CourtInsured status
References
1
Case No. ADJ2424214 (RIV 0082507)
Regular
Nov 21, 2008

KATI FREEMAN vs. PALA CASINO RESORT & SPA, TRIBAL FIRST

In this workers' compensation case, the employer, Pala Casino Resort & Spa, initially sought reconsideration of a decision finding jurisdiction over their claim, arguing tribal sovereign immunity. Subsequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's claim, determining it lacked jurisdiction. The employer then requested withdrawal of their reconsideration petition, which the Board granted, dismissing the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPala Casino Resort & SpaTribal Firstsovereign immunitytribal jurisdictiongeneral appearancewaiver of immunityfederally recognized Indian tribeadministrative law judgePetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Malena v. Victoria's Secret Direct, LLC

Fredda Malena, a former executive assistant, brought claims against Victoria's Secret entities and Ann O’Malley for pregnancy discrimination and retaliation under federal and New York state/city laws. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss these claims. The court, led by District Judge J. Paul Oetken, granted the motions in part and denied them in part. O’Malley was found not liable for FMLA retaliation and direct NYSHRL discrimination but may be liable for NYSHRL retaliation, NYCHRL claims, and aiding and abetting. The Corporate Defendants' summary judgment motion was denied for discrimination and FMLA/NYSHRL/NYCHRL retaliation, but granted for aiding and abetting and the spread-of-hours claim.

Pregnancy DiscriminationFMLA RetaliationNYSHRL DiscriminationNYCHRL DiscriminationSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityIndividual LiabilityMixed MotiveReduction in ForceRetaliation Claims
References
58
Case No. ADJ8472362, ADJ8472374
Regular
Dec 30, 2013

PROVIDENT OF BROOK SILVA vs. M.A.C.T. HEALTH BOARD; TRIBAL FIRST

This case involves an applicant's petition for reconsideration after their workers' compensation claims were dismissed without prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The applicant argued a due process violation, claiming they were denied the opportunity to present evidence and that discovery was refused. However, the Board denied reconsideration, finding the applicant had multiple opportunities to present their case. The dismissal was based on the defendant's assertion that M.A.C.T. Health Board, as a tribal organization, is protected by sovereign immunity, and the applicant failed to demonstrate WCAB jurisdiction.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissaluntimelymeritsADJ8472362ADJ8472374cumulative traumaspecific injuryback
References
0
Case No. ADJ8199763
Regular
Mar 14, 2014

JIA YUN BERES vs. YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION, CACHE CREEK CASINO REPORT, TRIBAL FIRST/ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered a case where an applicant sought compensation for an injury sustained while working for a tribal casino. The WCAB found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim, as the tribe had not waived its sovereign immunity beyond the limited issue of notice regarding appeal rights under its workers' compensation ordinance. The WCAB determined it was not a "court of competent jurisdiction" as defined in the tribe's ordinance for enforcing arbitration obligations. Consequently, the WCAB granted reconsideration, amended the prior order to remove the requirement for evidence on appeal rights notice, and dismissed the applicant's claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardYocha Dehe Wintun NationCache Creek Casinosovereign immunitytribal ordinanceGaming ContractCaliforniajurisdictionWCJarbitration
References
1
Case No. ADJ2238226
Regular
Mar 04, 2013

JUDINE JACOBS vs. RIVERSIDE-SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY INDIAN HEALTH, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the dismissal of an applicant's claim, finding it lacked jurisdiction due to Indian tribal sovereign immunity. The applicant, a nurse, claimed a psyche injury while employed by Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc. (RSB). RSB, despite being incorporated under California law, was deemed a governmental entity linked to tribes and serving federal policy, thus entitled to sovereign immunity. The Board found no evidence of an explicit waiver of this immunity.

Tribal sovereign immunityWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndian Healthpsyche injurynursefindings and orderjurisdictionpetition for reconsiderationreport and recommendationadministrative law judge
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Herne

This case addresses a jurisdictional issue concerning the St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Police's authority outside their reservation boundaries. Defendant Amanda Herne was arrested by tribal police in Franklin County, but outside the St. Regis Mohawk Reservation, for aggravated driving while intoxicated, driving while intoxicated, and speed not reasonable and prudent. The court, interpreting Indian Law § 114, concluded that the tribal police's powers are strictly limited to the reservation, except for specific circumstances not present. Consequently, the arrest was deemed null and void due to lack of jurisdiction. The indictment against Amanda Herne was dismissed, with the court noting that tribal officers can still assist other agencies or provide citizen testimony.

Indian LawTribal Police JurisdictionSt. Regis Mohawk TribeCriminal Procedure LawStatutory ConstructionGeographic JurisdictionDWITraffic OffenseArrest AuthorityMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murphy v. HeartShare Human Services of New York

Plaintiffs Kaisha Murphy and Shana-Kay McDougall, employees of a school and a residence for students with disabilities, alleged that these two entities acted as joint employers and violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law (NYLL) by failing to provide overtime pay for hours worked combined across both entities. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing they were separate entities. The court, presided over by Judge Jack B. Weinstein, denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs' allegations sufficiently established a plausible claim for horizontal joint employment due to shared clients, common physical location, shared administrative services, and coordinated employee assignments. The case is set for trial.

joint employmentFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor Lawovertime wagesmotion to dismissemployer liabilitywage and hour claimshorizontal employmenteconomic realities testemployee rights
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Isaacson

This is a criminal prosecution where defendant Julius Isaacson, a union official, was charged with embezzling and conspiring to embezzle money from a labor union and employee benefit funds through an alleged kickback scheme. The Government moved to disqualify Isaacson’s counsel due to a potential conflict of interest, as the attorney and his firm previously represented some of the alleged victim entities. Despite Isaacson’s waiver of his right to conflict-free counsel, the Government argued that the conflict was intolerable. The court denied the motion without prejudice, reasoning that the factual allegations focused on external conduct, there was insufficient information at the early pretrial stage, and counsel had largely withdrawn from representing the victim entities. The court conditioned continued representation on counsel fully withdrawing from the remaining entity and attesting to no outstanding fees.

Criminal ProsecutionConflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationEmbezzlementUnion FundsEmployee Benefit PlansERISAKickback SchemeObstruction of JusticeSixth Amendment
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 482 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