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

Desser v. Ashton

This opinion addresses the sufficiency of an oral contract to satisfy the "purchaser-seller" requirement in a private action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, where no actual purchase or sale of securities occurred. The court considers whether such an oral agreement, even if potentially unenforceable under the statute of frauds, can support a federal securities claim. Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the court emphasizes a liberal and flexible construction of anti-fraud provisions to protect investors. It concludes that an action under Rule 10b-5 is not deficient merely because the contract relied upon is oral rather than written. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case is set to proceed to trial, affirming the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Securities fraudOral contractsRule 10b-5Purchaser-seller requirementStatute of fraudsPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentFederal court jurisdictionExchange Act of 1934Investor protection
References
18
Case No. ADJ10348591 ADJ10349019
Regular
Jan 07, 2019

MIGUEL VELAZQUEZ, SERVANDO VELAZQUEZ vs. ARTEMIO ARCE, SOLOMON MARTINEZ

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior finding that liens for interpreting services were not barred by AD rule 9792.5.5. This rule, requiring a second review request for fee schedule disputes, did not apply because the interpreter services were not subject to an applicable fee schedule at the time of service. Therefore, the lien claimant's failure to request a second review did not preclude the WCAB from adjudicating the lien dispute. The Board reasoned that AD rule 9792.5.5 and associated statutes only mandate the second review process for disputes concerning amounts under an "applicable fee schedule."

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAD Rule 9792.5.5Official Medical Fee ScheduleIndependent Bill ReviewExplanation of ReviewLabor Code section 4603.2Senate Bill 863Threshold IssueFee Schedule DisputeInterpreter Services
References
0
Case No. ADJ2154380
Regular
Jul 21, 2010

SPENCER DAVIS vs. CLARK & SULLIVAN, INC., LWP CLAIMS SACRAMENTO, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY SAN FRANCISCO, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY PASADENA

In this case, the defendant sought to disqualify a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) due to their alleged unavailability for deposition within 120 days as required by Administrative Director Rule 35.5(f). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for removal. The WCAB found that Rule 31.5, which allows for replacement panels, does not apply to QME unavailability for deposition. Furthermore, the Board determined the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, especially after rescheduling the deposition themselves.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorDeposition UnavailabilityAdministrative Director RuleMandatory RegulationPrejudice and HarmReplacement PanelWCJ OrderUpper Extremities InjuryPsyche Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ8560542
Regular
Oct 17, 2016

SAMUEL LARA vs. DIAMOND RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT, AMERICAN CLAIMS SAN DIEGO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of an order dismissing a lien claimant's lien based on a failure to file a Notice of Representation (NOR) under WCAB Rule 10774.5. The WCAB found that because the rule became effective after the lien claimant initially appeared, a new NOR was not required when an employee of their representative appeared. Therefore, the WCAB rescinded the dismissal order and returned the matter for further proceedings.

WCAB Rule 10774.5Notice of RepresentationLien ClaimantAR Jureidini DowneyWilliam EspinozaOrder Dismissing LienPetition for ReconsiderationAgencyEmployee RepresentativeWCJ
References
1
Case No. ADJ9202952
Regular
Nov 05, 2018

MARIA LOPEZ vs. KELLERMEYER BERGENSON SERVICES, LLC, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The WCAB dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of an Order Vacating, finding the order was not a final decision. However, it granted the defendant's Petition for Removal of that same Order Vacating, deeming it untimely under WCAB Rule 10859. Consequently, the WCAB vacated the Order Vacating, restoring the original July 5, 2018 Findings of Fact. The WCAB also dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Removal, affirming the July 5, 2018 Findings of Fact which held the lien claimant bound by prior causation findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder VacatingFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeLien ClaimantSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmFinal Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ1948258 (ANA 0389059)
Regular
Jan 22, 2014

FLORICA DANESCU vs. HIGH ENERGY SPORTS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The primary reason for dismissal was the petition's untimeliness, stemming from personal service of the Stipulation and Order. Additionally, the WCAB dismissed the petition because the petitioner's representative, MJR Management Services, Inc., and Leonard Pina, failed to comply with WCAB Rule 10774.5(a) regarding Notice of Representation. Future non-compliance with this rule may lead to sanctions.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalUntimelyPersonal ServiceStipulation and OrderNotice of RepresentationWCAB Rule 10774.5Lien ClaimantHearing RepresentativeSB 863
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Chapter 5 of the Laws of 1999, which attempted to rescind New York City's commuter tax for New York State residents while retaining it for out-of-State commuters. The City of New York challenged the statute on home rule grounds, while residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, along with the State of Connecticut, argued it violated the Federal Constitution's Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. The Court held that Chapter 5 did not violate state home rule provisions. However, it found the statute unconstitutional under the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses due to its discriminatory treatment of out-of-State commuters. Consequently, the 'poison pill' provision of Chapter 5 took effect, leading to the repeal of the entire New York City commuter tax as of July 1, 1999.

Commuter TaxHome Rule ProvisionsPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeState TaxationTax DiscriminationNew York CityLegislative PowerStatutory Repeal
References
40
Case No. ADJ9314776
Regular
May 16, 2018

Ken Sutton vs. San Jose Sharks, Federal Insurance Company

This case involves a professional hockey player's cumulative trauma claim against the San Jose Sharks. The employer sought exemption from California workers' compensation jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(d), arguing the player's last employer, the Ingolstadt Panthers, was exempt. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior finding, ruling that the Ingolstadt Panthers were not exempt under section 3600.5(c) as the player did not work temporarily in California for them. Consequently, the claim is not exempt under section 3600.5(d), and the WCAB retains jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Jose SharksFederal Insurance Companycumulative trauma claimLabor Code section 3600.5(d)professional athleteIngolstadt Pantherssubject matter jurisdictionvocational rehabilitationduty days
References
9
Case No. ADJ8972463
Regular

## ANDREW SULEMAN, vs. ## NEWPORT-MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, permissibly self-insured, administered by KEENAN & ASSOCIATES,

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order denies Andrew Suleman's Petition for Removal. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, finding the petition failed to fairly state all material evidence. Suleman is cautioned to comply with WCAB Rule 10842(a) and Rules of Professional Conduct 5-200(A) and (B) regarding truthful and non-misleading submissions. The petition was denied for these reasons.

Petition for RemovalWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSelf-insuredKeenan & AssociatesAdministrative Law JudgePetition for ReconsiderationRule 10842(a)Rules of Professional Conduct 5-200Material Evidence
References
0
Case No. ADJ7516108
Regular
Jun 06, 2011

ANGELICA CROTTE vs. UFO, INC., ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Virginia Surety's petition for removal because it was unverified, violating WCAB Rule 10843(b). The WCAB also noted the petition's excessive length and improper attachments, which violated multiple rules, including CA Rule 10232(a)(10) and WCAB Rule 10842(c). Based on these egregious violations, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to impose a $500 sanction on Virginia Surety's counsel, Sophia E. Martinez, pursuant to Labor Code section 5813.

Petition for RemovalUnverified PetitionWCAB RulesLabor Code 5813SanctionsFrivolousWillful Failure to ComplyWCJAdministrative Law JudgeVirginia Surety Company
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 11,401 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