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

Overstreet v. El Paso Disposal, L.P.

The case concerns Petitioner Cómele A. Overstreet's "Petition for Temporary Injunction Pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act" against Respondent El Paso Disposal, L.P. The Court first denied Respondent's motion to dismiss, affirming the Board's lawful delegation of Section 10(j) authority to the General Counsel and its continuing validity despite Board vacancies. Subsequently, the Court granted the temporary injunction, finding reasonable cause that El Paso Disposal engaged in unfair labor practices, including bad faith bargaining, unilateral policy changes, and wrongful non-reinstatement of striking workers. The injunction orders the reinstatement of workers, recognition and bargaining with the Union, and rescission of unilateral changes to restore the lawful status quo and enable the National Labor Relations Board to provide effective relief.

Labor LawNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesTemporary InjunctionSection 10(j)Collective BargainingUnion RecognitionStrike ReinstatementQuorum RequirementsDelegation of Authority
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 1984

Polito v. Polito

The plaintiff appealed a judgment dismissing her complaint seeking rescission of a release and reformation of a deed, alleging duress. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially dismissed the complaint. The appellate court found ample evidence of the defendant's physical and emotional abuse, which compelled the plaintiff to sign the release, thus depriving her of free will. The court reversed the lower court's judgment, reinstated the complaint, and remitted the matter for entry of a judgment rescinding the release and reforming the deed to establish joint tenancy of the property.

DuressRescissionDeed ReformationDomestic ViolenceSpousal AbuseJoint TenancyEquitable ReliefAppellate ReviewFree WillRatification of Agreement
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Litvinov v. Hodson

The provided text is a dissenting opinion from Scudder, P.J., and Smith, J. They argue to grant the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment and dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. The case involves a plaintiff who suffered an arm injury and subsequently signed a release of all claims against defendants Eileen M. Hodson and Jeremy L. Hodson for $4,000. The plaintiff later sought to invalidate this release, claiming mutual mistake, unilateral mistake, fraud, and misrepresentation by Foy (an agent of New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company). The dissenting judges contend that the language of the release is clear and unambiguous, and the plaintiff failed to establish grounds for rescission based on mutual mistake or fraud. They cite previous case law emphasizing the binding nature of clear releases and the stringent requirements for setting them aside.

Release of ClaimsSummary JudgmentMutual MistakeUnilateral MistakeFraudMisrepresentationDissenting OpinionContract LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimPersonal Injury
References
13
Case No. 07-10-0397-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2011

Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Dallas Area Parkinsonism Society, Inc. and American Cancer Society High Plains Division, Inc.

Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. (Chesapeake) appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Dallas Area Parkinsonism Society, Inc. (DAPS) and American Cancer Society High Plains Division, Inc. (ACS). Chesapeake sought to recover bonus money paid for oil and gas leases, asserting claims for breach of the covenant of seisin, rescission due to mutual mistake, unilateral mistake, money had and received/unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation. The Charities argued the leases, despite containing a special warranty, operated as quitclaim deeds and that Chesapeake could not show justifiable reliance due to an independent title investigation. The appellate court concluded that the leases were special warranty deeds, conveying the property itself, not merely quitclaim deeds. Furthermore, the court found that Chesapeake's preliminary title investigation did not negate reliance or causation, as it reinforced the Charities' representations and failed to reveal the defects. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Oil and Gas LeaseSummary JudgmentSpecial Warranty DeedQuitclaim DeedMutual MistakeUnilateral MistakeUnjust EnrichmentNegligent MisrepresentationCovenant of SeisinContract Dispute
References
42
Case No. ADJ2569351 (LAO 00867165)
Regular
May 14, 2012

ZENAIDA SONGCO vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's rescission order was not a final order. However, the Board granted the applicant's petition for removal and rescinded the WCJ's March 5, 2012 Rescission Order. This was because the defendant's petition for reconsideration, which prompted the rescission, was untimely filed. Consequently, the WCJ lacked jurisdiction to rescind the original Stipulated Award.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalRescission OrderAmended Stipulated AwardHazardous Material SpecialistNeck InjurySpine InjuryShoulder InjuryRight Hip InjuryPsyche Injury
References
9
Case No. ADJ6865421
Regular
Sep 08, 2017

DAVID BERRIOS-SEGOVIA vs. EJ DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION, SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, MARKEL dba FIRST COMP, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case returns to the Appeals Board after the Court of Appeal determined that the rescission of an insurance policy is subject to mandatory arbitration. The Court annulled the arbitrator's prior findings, ordering further proceedings to determine the legal effectiveness of the insurer's rescission. The insurer must prove the employer's misrepresentations were material and that rescission is not being used to circumvent policy approval requirements. The matter is remanded to the arbitrator for further proceedings and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemittiturMandatory ArbitrationLabor Code Section 5275Policy RescissionMaterial MisrepresentationUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundDepartment of InsuranceInsurance CommissionerPrior Approval
References
0
Case No. ADJ9843286
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

MARQUIS MAYFIELD vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, PSI, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

In *Mayfield v. Federal Express Corporation*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior order. The WCAB rescinded an August 2, 2017 order that had commuted future weekly payments to a lump sum of $6,000. This rescission was based on the defendant's petition for reconsideration, supported by the applicant's counsel, who also requested rescission. The primary reason for rescission was that the full settlement award had already been advanced to the applicant, leaving no remaining funds for commutation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCommutation OrderRescindedFederal Express CorporationSedgwick CMSPermanent Disability AwardEconomic HardshipStatement of Non-OppositionAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ7825020
Regular
Aug 31, 2015

MILTON LEWIS vs. BARLOW RESPIRATORY HOSPITAL, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of a stipulation and order where they agreed to accept \$1,000.00 in full satisfaction of their lien. The lien claimant argued the stipulation was entered into by unilateral mistake as their representative lacked authorization. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the claimant failed to present evidence of unilateral mistake or to properly seek to set aside the stipulation. Furthermore, the claimant did not plead sufficient facts to support a unilateral mistake claim, such as the opposing party's knowledge and advantage, nor did they demonstrate they fulfilled their legal duty of reasonable inquiry.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation and OrderUnilateral mistakeAffirmative defenseGood causeRescinding contractMaterial factLegal duty
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of O'Shea v. City of Binghamton

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that rescinded an award for disability due to an aggravation of pre-existing tuberculosis from November 5, 1974, to December 30, 1975, and limited partial disability awards to June 3, 1976. The claimant contended the rescission was contradictory and medical evidence showed continuing disability. The court found that the board's rescission of benefits for the period of November 5, 1974, to December 30, 1975, was arbitrary and lacked substantial evidence, especially given medical reports and employer concessions regarding partial disability during that time. Consequently, the decision was modified by reversing the rescission of the referee’s award for that period and remitting the matter to the Board for further proceedings.

Tuberculosis AggravationSmoke InhalationTemporary Total DisabilityPartial DisabilityCausal RelationMedical EvidenceArbitrary and CapriciousSubstantial EvidenceRemittalWorkers' Compensation Appeal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hutchison v. Pyburn

Plaintiffs William and Jo Lynn Hutchison purchased a house and lot from defendants Robert and Carol Pyburn. The property, built by defendant Jack Williams, was later discovered to have an unapproved sewage disposal system due to insufficient topsoil, a fact known to the defendants. Plaintiffs sued for fraud and misrepresentation, and the Chancery Court of Davidson County awarded rescission of the deed and $5,000.00 in punitive damages, along with incidental damages. Defendants appealed the award of punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that punitive damages are available in equity for fraudulent conduct and are not inconsistent with the remedy of rescission. The court also clarified that proving entitlement to rescission and incidental damages satisfies the 'actual damages' prerequisite for punitive damages.

FraudRealty SaleRescission of DeedPunitive DamagesEquitable RemediesElection of RemediesActual DamagesMisrepresentationProperty DefectsTennessee Law
References
30
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