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

Video Aid Corp. v. Town of Wallkill

The case discusses whether Video Aid Corp. should be reimbursed for an unconstitutional $27,000 water sewer tap-in fee paid to the Town of Wallkill to obtain a building permit. This dissenting opinion, authored by Bellacosa, J., argues that the Appellate Division's order for reimbursement was correct, stating that the payment was made under legal duress. The dissent highlights that the Town unlawfully exacted the fee, impeding Video Aid's business expansion, and that Video Aid's immediate lawsuit constituted "authentic resistance." It draws on precedents affirming that municipalities cannot manipulate responsibilities for revenue generation and that involuntary payments, even without formal protest, warrant recovery, ultimately advocating for affirmance of the reimbursement order.

Unconstitutional feeLegal duressInvoluntary paymentBuilding permitMunicipal feesReimbursementTown of WallkillVideo Aid Corp.Business expansionAppellate Division
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2004

Ulloa v. Universal Music and Video Distribution Corp.

Plaintiff Demme Ulloa initiated legal action against Universal Music and Video Distribution Corp., Island Def Jam Music Group, Roc-A-Fella Records, LLC, and Shawn Carter, alleging copyright infringement, false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, unjust enrichment, joint authorship, and an accounting of sales. Ulloa claimed to have spontaneously created a vocal counter-melody for Shawn Carter's song "Izzo (H.O.V.A.)" which was later used without proper credit or compensation. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the claims of joint authorship and Lanham Act violations, dismissing them. However, it denied both parties' motions for summary judgment regarding copyright infringement, citing unresolved factual disputes concerning originality, work-for-hire status, and implied license. Additionally, the defendants' motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim and to bifurcate the trial were denied.

Copyright InfringementLanham ActUnjust EnrichmentJoint AuthorshipSummary JudgmentWork for HireImplied LicenseMusical CompositionSound RecordingOriginality
References
31
Case No. Docket No. 2019-04-0074, State File No. 78477-2018
Regular Panel Decision

Caldwell , Ricky v. Federal Mogul Motorsports Corp.

The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board heard an interlocutory appeal concerning a dispute between Ricky Caldwell (Employee) and Federal Mogul Motorsports Corp. (Employer). The Employer challenged a trial court's decision to conduct a telephonic hearing over its objections and to condition a medical examination on live-streaming or video-conferencing. The Employee also raised an issue regarding the timeliness of the Employer's appeal of an earlier order. The Appeals Board affirmed that the employee must submit to a medical examination as per Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(d)(1). However, it reversed the trial court's order requiring the medical examination to be live-streamed or video-conferenced, reasoning that such a condition lacks statutory basis and presents practical difficulties. The Board found that the concept of 'present at the examination' in the statute does not extend to electronic observation from a remote location. Consequently, the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Board's opinion.

Workers' Compensation LawMedical Examination ConditionsVideo ConferencingInterlocutory AppealTelephonic HearingsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureAbuse of DiscretionHIPAA ConsiderationsDue Process
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 1987

Promovision Video Display Corp. v. Intech Leasing Corp.

This case concerns an appeal where Promovision Video Display Corporation sued Intech Leasing Corporation for breach of contract and fraud. The dispute arose from a series of integrated agreements, including a sales agreement with an arbitration clause between Promovision and Fujitsu Systems of America, Inc., and a financing agreement between Promovision and Intech. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially denied Intech's motion to compel arbitration and granted Promovision's cross-motion to stay arbitration. The appellate court reversed this order, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act applied and that the arbitration clause, incorporated by reference into the financing agreement, governed the claims between Promovision and Intech. Consequently, the parties were directed to proceed to arbitration, and the action was stayed.

ArbitrationBreach of ContractFederal Arbitration ActIntegrated ContractsAssignmentFinancing AgreementSales AgreementMotion to Compel ArbitrationStay of ActionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. ADJ7253570
Regular
May 20, 2015

MICHELLE FELDHAKE vs. HOLLYWOOD VIDEO, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant, Michelle Feldhake, and defendants Hollywood Video and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The defendants petitioned for removal of an order that closed discovery and set the case for trial, arguing it would cause irreparable harm by preventing them from obtaining vocational evidence. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the order, and returned the case to the trial level due to ambiguity regarding the timing of the applicant's vocational expert's report. This action allows defendants to potentially obtain and present their own vocational evidence.

Petition for RemovalDiminished Future Earning CapacityVocational ExpertClosing DiscoveryDue ProcessIrreparable HarmVocational EvidenceMandatory Settlement ConferenceFindings Award and OrderHome Healthcare
References
2
Case No. 01-13-01068-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2015

Diamond Offshore Services Limited and Diamond Offshore Services Company v. Willie David Williams

This dissenting opinion addresses the exclusion of a surveillance video in a personal injury case where plaintiff Willie David Williams sued Diamond Offshore for an on-the-job back injury. Williams was awarded $8.5 million in damages by a jury, claiming total and permanent disability. Diamond Offshore attempted to introduce a video showing Williams performing physical tasks, arguing its relevance as substantive and impeachment evidence. The trial court, without viewing the video, excluded it, citing unfair prejudice and cumulativeness, a decision affirmed by the majority. The dissenting judge argues that this exclusion was an abuse of discretion, as the video was highly probative to Williams' claims of injury and disability, not unfairly prejudicial, and not cumulative, thus warranting a reversal of the judgment and a new trial.

Surveillance VideoEvidence ExclusionAbuse of DiscretionFair TrialDamages AssessmentPersonal InjuryDissenting OpinionAppellate ReviewProbative ValueUnfair Prejudice
References
26
Case No. ADJ769451 (MON 0236205)
Regular
Apr 01, 2010

CLEMI BOUBLI vs. CAST & CREW PAYROLL, CNA

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal after the WCJ struck an Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) report and closed discovery. The AME reviewed surveillance videos suggesting the applicant's reported disability was feigned or exaggerated, recommending further evaluation. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding disputes regarding video admissibility require resolution at the trial level. The matter is returned for the WCJ to determine video admissibility and decide on further medical evaluations.

RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorSurveillance VideoExaggerated DisabilityNeuropsychological EvaluationUnfair DecisionAdmissible EvidenceEvidentiary RulingsReconsiderationTrial Level Proceedings
References
1
Case No. ADJ1479326 (ANA 0411799) ADJ7233578
Regular
Oct 07, 2014

JONATHAN DUONG vs. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board overturned a WCJ's decision to exclude sub rosa surveillance video. The Board found no legal basis for excluding the video obtained in a mobile home park parking lot and a grocery store, as the applicant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in those public areas. The Board determined that the defendant would suffer significant prejudice from the exclusion, justifying removal of the case. Therefore, the sub rosa video was ruled admissible and may be provided to medical evaluators.

Sub rosa videoremovalreconsiderationadmissibilityinvasion of privacyreasonable expectation of privacycivil liabilityworkers' compensation fraudmedical-legal evaluatorworkers' compensation appeals board
References
20
Case No. ADJ6720229
Regular
Dec 03, 2014

PATRICK BARNES vs. CLEVELAND BROWNS FOOTBALL COMPANY, LLC, SAN FRANCISCO DEMONS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE, NEW ORLEANS SAINTS, OAKLAND RAIDERS, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of an order that allowed the defendant, Cleveland Browns Football Company, LLC, to potentially introduce video evidence. The original administrative law judge excluded the video as untimely disclosed, citing Labor Code section 5502(d)(3), which generally closes discovery at mandatory settlement conferences. The Appeals Board initially granted removal to review the exclusion, finding the video potentially relevant. However, the Board now denies reconsideration because the prior order was interlocutory and not a final determination of rights or liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)DiscoveryVideo EvidenceCumulative TraumaProfessional AthleteAdministrative Law Judge
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diamond Offshore Servs. Ltd. v. Williams

This case involves a personal-injury lawsuit where an employee, Willie David Williams, sued his employer, Diamond Offshore Services Limited and Diamond Offshore Services Company, under the Jones Act for negligence after a workplace back injury. Diamond Offshore believed Williams exaggerated his pain and physical limitations, so they conducted surveillance and recorded him engaging in physical activities. The trial court excluded this surveillance video without viewing it, and the jury awarded Williams nearly $10 million in damages. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the video without first viewing it and that its exclusion was harmful error. The court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial, emphasizing the importance of viewing video evidence in such cases.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentJones ActSurveillance VideoEvidence AdmissibilityTrial Court DiscretionRule 403Harmful ErrorNew TrialDamages Assessment
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 216 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