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. ADJ481102 (VNO 0424558) ADJ1281091 (VNO 0424557) ADJ3604732 (VNO 0481998)
Regular
Jul 30, 2010

VERNA CLAYVON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

This case involves Verna Clayvon's workers' compensation claims against the County of Los Angeles and its insurer. The applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition and the WCJ's report. The WCAB denied the Petition for Reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenying ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeCounty of Los AngelesIntercare Insurance ServicesADJ481102ADJ1281091ADJ3604732VNO 0424558
References
0
Case No. ADJ2844570 (SJO 0266373) ADJ4420741 (SJO 0267631) ADJ3297316 (SJO 0267632)
Regular
Jan 04, 2013

VERNA PARKS vs. BRADDOCK & LOGAN, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has dismissed Verna Parks' Petition for Reconsideration. The petitioner formally withdrew the petition, rendering it moot. Consequently, the Board issued an order dismissing the reconsideration of the October 17, 2012 decision. This action concludes the reconsideration phase of this case.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantsCase NosOrderDecisionConcur
References
0
Case No. 2014-02-0013
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2015

Silas, Verna v. Brock Services

The employee, Vema Silas, sustained a back injury at work and sought temporary disability benefits. The trial court denied benefits based on compensability and later dismissed her claim without prejudice due to a lack of medical evidence proving a work-related injury. Employee appealed the dismissal but failed to present any arguments or additional evidence. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the record and affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error or abuse of discretion in the dismissal of the claim. The Board further certified the order as final.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryCompensabilityMedical EvidenceMotion to DismissExpedited HearingPro Se LitigantAppeals BoardTennessee LawTemporary Disability Benefits
References
3
Case No. ADJ3255721 (SFO 0500284) ADJ1045902 (SFO 0500285)
Regular
Jan 23, 2012

Ronald S. Verna vs. City of Los Altos Police Department

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Los Altos Police Department's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the finding that the applicant sustained a compensable sleep disorder as a consequence of industrial injuries, necessitating a CPAP machine. This decision was based on the treating physician's opinion and applicant's credible testimony, and the partial compromise and release agreement explicitly preserved future medical care. The Board found the defendant's arguments regarding substantial evidence, the compromise and release, and the need for a petition to reopen to be without merit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Los Altos Police DepartmentRonald S. VernaPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardSleep DisorderCompensable ConsequenceCPAP MachineSelf-Procured ExpenseCompromise and Release
References
1
Case No. ADJ1045902 (SFO 0500285) ADJ3255721 (SFO 0500284)
Regular
Dec 21, 2012

RONALD S. VERNA vs. CITY OF LOS ALTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT

This case concerns an award of additional attorney's fees to applicant's counsel, as mandated by Labor Code § 5801 after a successful writ of review. The Court of Appeal had remanded the matter for this specific purpose. The Board reviewed the submitted time and hourly rate, disallowing certain hours for clerical work, media communication, and duplicate entries. Ultimately, the Board awarded $9,080.00 in appellate attorney's fees to applicant's counsel.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewSupplemental AwardAttorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Certified SpecialistClerical TimeMedia CorrespondenceDuplicated EntriesAppellate Attorney's Fee
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williston v. Eggleston

Plaintiffs Gertrude Williston and the Cummins family initiated a class action against New York City and State officials, Verna Eggleston and Robert Doar, alleging violations of the Food Stamp Act under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for untimely provision of food stamps and inadequate program oversight. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, citing lack of private right of action, standing, mootness, and Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court denied the motions, affirming that plaintiffs had suffered demonstrable injury and possessed standing to pursue their claims. It further determined that the Food Stamp Act confers privately enforceable rights under § 1983 and that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the action seeking prospective injunctive relief. Consequently, the case was allowed to proceed to address the alleged systemic failures in food stamp delivery.

Food StampsClass ActionMotion to Dismiss42 U.S.C. § 1983Food Stamp ActTimeliness of BenefitsAdministrative RemediesStandingMootnessEleventh Amendment
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M.K.B. v. Eggleston

This Memorandum Order addresses a motion filed by defendants Verna Eggleston, Doar, and Novello, seeking to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel, paralegal assistants, interns, and former attorney Reena Ganju from testifying in the action. The defendants argued that these individuals were essential fact witnesses for the plaintiffs’ 'Monell' claim, invoking the advocate-witness rule. The Court, presided over by District Judge RAKOFF, denied the motion in its entirety. The decision clarified that the advocate-witness rule, as embodied in New York Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule 5-102, does not apply to non-lawyers or to lawyers not currently appearing for any party in the case. The Court also noted that Ms. Ganju's testimony and other documentary evidence would render counsel's testimony cumulative and not essential for the plaintiffs' case, though it admonished plaintiffs' counsel for an 'inappropriate' confusion of roles.

Advocate-Witness RuleDisqualification MotionLegal EthicsProfessional ResponsibilityMonell ClaimFederal CourtCounsel TestimonyParalegal TestimonyIntern TestimonyPrior Representation
References
3
Showing 1-7 of 7 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