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. ADJ7143769
Regular
Dec 31, 2015

CURTIS KLEIN vs. WARNER BROS. STUDIO, WARNER BROS. WORKERS COMP.

This case involves an appeal by the defendant, Warner Bros. Studio, against a decision filed on October 15, 2015. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration. This grants the Board more time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues to ensure a just decision. Pending this review, all related communications must be directed to the Office of the Commissioners.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationGRANTING ReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSWCJDecision After ReconsiderationCAL. CODE REGS. tit. 8 § 10859Stipulations with Request for AwardCompromise and Release Agreements
References
0
Case No. ADJ9737947
Regular
Apr 15, 2016

DOUGLAS CRINGEAN vs. WARNER BROS. STUDIO FACILITIES, WARNER BROS. WORKERS' COMPENSATION

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, involving Douglas Cringean and Warner Bros. Studio Facilities, concerns a clerical error in a prior decision's caption. The Board's decision served on April 11, 2016, incorrectly stated the caption as "Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration." The Board is correcting this to the accurate caption, "Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration." This correction is permissible as clerical errors can be rectified at any time without further proceedings.

Clerical ErrorCaption CorrectionPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAMENDED captionSupplemental ProceedingsADJ9737947Warner Bros. Studio FacilitiesDouglas Cringean
References
1
Case No. ADJ4177198
Regular
Jul 09, 2009

JESUS HERNANDEZ vs. WARNER BROS. STUDIOS.

This case involves an applicant, Jesus Hernandez, who claims industrial injuries to his back, lower extremities, psyche, and respiratory system while employed by Warner Bros. Studios. The employer sought reconsideration of a prior order, arguing the claims were barred by the post-termination defense under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify that the applicant's claimed respiratory system injury is not barred by the post-termination defense. The Board affirmed the prior order, finding that evidence of these injuries existed in pre-termination medical records.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination defenseindustrial injuriesjanitorback injurylower extremitiespsyche injuryrespiratory system injuryinternal systems
References
0
Case No. ADJ71 43769
Regular
May 11, 2016

CURTIS KLEIN vs. WARNER BROS. STUDIO

This case involves a dispute over reimbursement for medical treatment provided by Dr. Marina Russman and other lien claimants. The defendant, Warner Bros. Studio, argued that Dr. Russman's treatment requests should not have been authorized because they were not submitted by the applicant's primary treating physician and therefore did not trigger the utilization review (UR) process. The Appeals Board affirmed the original award, holding that requests for authorization from secondary treating physicians do trigger the UR process. The Board also found substantial evidence supported the reasonableness and necessity of Dr. Russman's treatment, rejecting the defendant's argument that the applicant's condition was due to a pre-existing injury. Finally, a clerical error in the original order regarding a lien claimant was corrected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCurtis KleinWarner Bros. StudioPermissibly Self-InsuredOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact Orders and AwardAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)Lien ClaimantsDr. Marina Russman
References
9
Case No. ADJ203059
Regular
Oct 05, 2012

KIRK CARDENAS vs. WARNER BROS. STUDIO FACILITIES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Warner Bros.' Petition for Reconsideration. The employer sought to overturn a finding that the applicant, Kirk Cardenas, injured his neck in a fall. The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) report, which found the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) opinion on the neck injury to be substantial medical evidence. The ALJ reasoned that the AME's opinion, despite some gaps in medical records, was based on a reasonable medical probability and that Warner Bros. had not provided sufficient reason to reject it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical Examinersubstantial medical evidenceneck injuryFall from ladderJourneyman sign painterLawrence Feiwell M.D.upper trapezius atrophyrhomboid region
References
3
Case No. ADJ1581964 (MON 0344940) ADJ3113707 (MON 0344944) ADJ1018953 (MON 0344941)
Regular
May 10, 2018

JORGE ALVARADO vs. WARNER BROS. STUDIOS, AIG CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Warner Bros. Studios' Petition for Reconsideration and denied their Petition for Removal. The WCAB found that the challenged order, requiring authorization of secondary treating physicians, was procedural and not a final order subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the WCAB found no basis for the defendant's claims of irreparable harm or prejudice, upholding the applicant's right to select his treating physicians under Labor Code Section 4600. The defendant's arguments regarding bypassing Utilization Review and duplicative treatment were also rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalSecondary Treating PhysicianPrimary Treating PhysicianCumulative Trauma InjuryLabor Code Section 4600Utilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationMedical Provider Network
References
0
Case No. ADJ2996723 (LAO 0841594), ADJ4157903 (LAO 0848595), ADJ4177198 (LAO 0848596)
Regular
May 30, 2017

JESUS HERNANDEZ vs. WARNER BROTHERS STUDIOS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Warner Brothers Studios' petition for removal in the case of Jesus Hernandez. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result from denial and reconsideration is inadequate. The WCAB found that Warner Brothers failed to demonstrate either of these conditions based on the WCJ's report. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration Adequate RemedyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportFinal DecisionAdverse DecisionApplicant
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox News Network, L.L.C. v. Time Warner Inc.

This case arises from a dispute between Time Warner and Fox concerning Time Warner's decision not to carry Fox News on its New York City cable channels. Fox initially sued Time Warner, prompting Time Warner to file counterclaims alleging that Fox conspired with New York City officials to unlawfully coerce Time Warner into carrying Fox News. Time Warner's counterclaims assert violations of its First Amendment and Due Process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and tortious interference with contractual relations. Fox moved to dismiss these counterclaims, arguing that its actions were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which generally shields lobbying activities. The court denied Fox's motion, concluding that Time Warner had adequately alleged a conspiracy and that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine might not apply if Fox's conduct was found to be illegal or corrupt, thus allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

First Amendment RightsDue ProcessSection 1983Noerr-Pennington DoctrineCable ActAntitrustLobbyingFreedom of SpeechConspiracyMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. ADJ6526775
Regular
Jul 26, 2011

KEITH TYRELL vs. WARNER BROS. STUDIO FACILITIES, INCORPORATED; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by WARNER BROS. RISK MANAGEMENT

Lien claimants sought reimbursement for medical treatment provided to the applicant, arguing the defendant employer failed to properly notify the applicant of their medical network and claim procedures. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimants' petition for reconsideration, affirming the judge's decision that their medical reports were inadmissible. This inadmissibility was due to the applicant's failure to properly dispute the findings of the initial primary treating physician and obtain a Qualified Medical Evaluator. Without admissible evidence supporting their claims, the lien claimants failed to meet their burden of proof.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantsFindings of FactMedical Provider Network (MPN)Primary Treating PhysicianQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Labor Code Section 4062Admissibility of EvidenceBurden of Proof
References
1
Case No. ADJ8000726
Regular
Oct 03, 2016

KONG CHREA vs. WARNER BROTHERS STUDIOS

Defendant Warner Brothers Studios sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision awarding applicant Kong Chrea 77% permanent disability. The defendant argued the assigned permanent disability rating was not supported by substantial medical evidence under Almaraz/Guzman and that the applicant failed to prove his psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by his physical injury. The Board denied reconsideration, finding Dr. Sobol's report provided adequate justification for the rating and that Dr. O'Brien's opinion supported the psychiatric injury finding. A dissenting opinion argued Dr. Sobol's rating was impermissibly based on work function and speculative calculations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability RatingAlmaraz/GuzmanSubstantial Medical EvidencePsyche InjuryPredominant CauseAMA GuidesFunctional CapacityAlternative RatingDisability Schedules
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 223 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