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

Velu v. Velocity Express, Inc.

Trevor Velu, a delivery driver, sued Velocity Express, Inc. (VEI) alleging unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, contending he was an employee. He also brought claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit related to a fuel surcharge. The Court determined that Velu was an independent contractor, not an employee, under both federal and state labor laws, leading to the dismissal of his wage and overtime claims. Summary judgment was denied for both parties on the breach of contract claim due to an unclear definition of 'net revenue' concerning the fuel surcharge. The quantum meruit claim was dismissed because a valid agreement existed between the parties.

FLSAIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusNew York Labor LawSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitDelivery DriverWage DisputeOvertime
References
24
Case No. ADJ473373 (ANA 0406381)
Regular
Feb 10, 2012

FERNANDO GUTIERREZ vs. SOCAL FRAMING aka BMHC; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, administered by ESIS, INC.

This case concerns applicant's claim for extended temporary disability (TD) benefits beyond 104 weeks due to a left eye injury. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's denial of the "amputation" exception, ruling that the surgical removal of an eye does not fit the statutory definition. However, the Board remanded the case for further development of the record on the "high-velocity eye injury" exception, as the velocity and force of the object that struck the applicant's eye were unclear. The applicant's Petition for Removal was dismissed as reconsideration was the appropriate remedy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFernando GutierrezSoCal FramingBMHCACE American InsuranceESISInc.ADJ473373ANA 0406381Opinion and Decision
References
1
Case No. VNO 0504722
Regular
Feb 13, 2008

FRANCK PETER vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; TPA: CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES

This case concerns a police officer injured in the line of duty, who sought further temporary disability benefits beyond the 104 weeks already paid. The applicant argued that "Injured on Duty" pay should not count towards the statutory limit, and that an exception for high-velocity eye injuries should apply. The Board denied reconsideration, holding that "Injured on Duty" pay is included within the 104-week limit under Labor Code section 4656, citing precedent, and found no evidence of a high-velocity eye injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPolice OfficerTemporary Disability IndemnityInjured on Duty (IOD)Los Angeles Administrative Code Section 4.177Labor Code Section 4656Radesky v. City of Los AngelesHigh-Velocity Eye Injury ExceptionMedical Evidence
References
3
Case No. ADJ665716
Regular
Jun 15, 2009

JUDD GLOVER vs. ACCU CONSTRUCTION, FIRST COMP OMAHA

This case concerns an applicant who sustained a high-velocity eye injury on June 8, 2006, along with injuries to his head, brain, and psyche. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding of a high-velocity eye injury and ongoing temporary total disability. However, the Board remanded the case to the trial level for further development of the record to determine if the eye injury contributes to the applicant's continuing temporary disability, which is necessary for extended benefits under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(F). Issues of additional temporary disability indemnity and attorney's fees were deferred pending this determination.

High-velocity eye injuryLabor Code section 4656Temporary total disabilityReconsiderationFindings & AwardCompensable consequenceNexusAmputation exceptionCruz v. Mercedes-BenzFoster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
17
Case No. ADJ7650259
Regular
Aug 20, 2012

DARA HANRAHAN vs. CALIFORNIA HORSEMEN'S ALLIANCE, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, CHARTIS INSURANCE

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant, Dara Hanrahan, sustained an injury to her eye while working as an exercise rider. The defendant argued the injury did not qualify as "high-velocity" under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(F) due to a lack of velocity evidence. Medical reports documented a traumatic blowout fracture of the left orbit with significant soft tissue entrapment and residual symptoms, including diplopia and ongoing facial pain. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the injury qualified for extended temporary disability benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDara HanrahanCalifornia Horsemen's AllianceInsurance Company of the State of PennsylvaniaChartis InsuranceADJ7650259Oakland District OfficePetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ11111709
Regular
Sep 19, 2018

STEVEN GONZALES vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., SERVICEMASTER ANYTIME, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) award of temporary disability benefits exceeding the 104-week cap. The Board found sufficient evidence, including applicant's testimony, to establish a "high velocity eye injury" under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(F). The Board reasoned that a reasonable inference could be drawn from the applicant's description of hitting a nail that splintered, striking his eye at high velocity. Defendant's arguments regarding the applicant's inability to identify the object or its speed, and a post-trial QME report, were rejected.

High velocity eye injuryLabor Code section 4656(c)(3)(F)Temporary disability indemnity104 week capTemporarily totally disabledTemporarily partially disabledPetition for reconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJQME report
References
0
Case No. ADJ9708932
Regular
Dec 04, 2015

HECTOR ORTEGA vs. VELOCITY EXPRESS LEASING, INC., LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, c/o AMERICAN INSURANCE GUARANTEE

This case concerns Hector Ortega's claim for workers' compensation benefits for an alleged injury on June 7, 2007. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied his petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that his claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Ortega argued that a date-stamped Application for Adjudication of Claim, received by the WCAB on July 1, 2010, proved timely filing or warranted a due process hearing. However, the WCAB found this Application was not submitted into evidence at trial, and an Amended Application, filed later, did not relate back to overcome the statute of limitations as no timely original application was in evidence. Consequently, the Board concluded that the claim was not timely filed and denied reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5405Petition for ReconsiderationApplication for Adjudication of ClaimAmended ApplicationPre-Trial Conference StatementTollingDue ProcessGood Cause
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clemente v. Blumenberg

In this case, plaintiff Deborah Clemente, injured in a rear-end collision, alleged a herniated disk, supported by her treating neurologist and MRI. Defendant Ernest J. Blumenberg sought to introduce a biomedical engineer, M. Kenneth Salzer, as an expert to argue the low-impact collision could not cause such injuries. The court conducted a Frye hearing to assess the engineer's methodology, which relied on repair costs and photographs to calculate vehicle velocity change. Finding this methodology unscientific, untested, and not generally accepted, the court precluded Salzer's testimony. The judge emphasized the gatekeeping role to exclude unreliable scientific and technical evidence under both Frye and Daubert/Kumho standards, noting the engineer lacked medical qualifications for injury causation opinions.

Expert TestimonyBiomedical EngineeringBiomechanicsFrye HearingDaubert StandardKumho Tire StandardAdmissibility of EvidenceScientific EvidenceLow-Impact CollisionPersonal Injury
References
10
Showing 1-8 of 8 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