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. 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. ADJ1799490 VNO 0531984 ADJ1619817 VNO 1619817
Regular
Feb 01, 2013

TONI PARKER vs. WARNER BROTHERS STUDIOS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Case No. ADJ1799490, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's award, returning the case for further proceedings because Warner Brothers' due process rights were violated by a lack of service of rating instructions and the DEU rating. In Case No. ADJ1619817, the Board dismissed Warner Brothers' reconsideration petition as untimely but granted removal on its own motion to clarify administrative responsibility. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings in ADJ1619817 but deferred the designation of the administering defendant, also returning it for trial-level determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardDue ProcessRating InstructionsDisability Evaluation UnitDEUPermanent DisabilityIndustrial InjuryBilateral Upper Extremities
References
0
Case No. ADJ2263476 (VNO 0318779)
Regular
Apr 20, 2016

DARLENE FERRONA vs. WARNER BROTHERS, TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT CO; ZURICH LOS ANGELES

This case concerns Darlene Ferrona's entitlement to 24/7 home health care following a psyche and fibromyalgia injury. The defendant, Warner Brothers, sought reconsideration of an order granting these services, arguing that utilization review only authorized limited care and that new prescriptions were required per Labor Code section 4600(h). The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming that the applicant's prior authorization of 24/7 home health care by treating physicians and subsequent stipulation established ongoing need. The Board clarified that while a prescription date is crucial for liability, a new prescription is not always necessary to continue approved, ongoing home health care if the applicant's condition has not changed, citing the precedent of *Patterson v. The Oaks Farm*.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDarlene FerronaWarner BrothersZurich Los Angelesindustrial injurypsychefibromyalgiahome health careutilization reviewsubstantial medical evidence
References
5
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. ADJ7407298
Regular
Apr 29, 2011

MARTHA PRETALIA vs. WARNER BROTHERS

Defendant Warner Brothers sought reconsideration or removal after the WCJ denied their motion to strike applicant's medical reports. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the order was not final, and denied the Petition for Removal as defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board also declined to impose sanctions against the defendant. The defendant's argument regarding Labor Code section 4062.2 was not addressed as the primary issue was the procedural nature of the petitions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalMinute OrderMotion to StrikeMedical ReportsLabor Code section 4062.2Agreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical ExaminerFinal Order
References
5
Case No. ADJ6820021, ADJ6820115, ADJ6820640, ADJ6820664
Regular
May 11, 2012

GENOVEVA AYALA vs. WARNER BROTHERS

This case involves Genoveva Ayala's workers' compensation claims against Warner Brothers for multiple injuries. The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) found some injuries to be established but excluded applicant's medical evidence regarding neurological and internal injuries due to alleged procedural violations. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the applicant should have an opportunity to obtain admissible medical reports through the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) process, as defendants allegedly interfered with this process. Consequently, the issue of neurological and internal injuries is deferred for further evaluation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGenoveva AyalaWarner BrothersPermissibly Self-InsuredJoint Partial Findings of FactOrders and Notice of Intention to Appoint Regular PhysicianWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)orthopedic injurycumulative traumaneurological system
References
5
Case No. 2019-01-0653
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2020

Bloodsaw, Talisha v. Alexian Brothers Community Services d/b/a Alexian Brothers PACE

Talisha Bloodsaw, a PACE driver, alleged a chest wall injury on July 18, 2019, while preventing a patient from falling and assisting him into a walker. She sought emergency treatment, but Alexian Brothers refused payment, asserting the incident did not occur. Conflicting testimonies from Ms. Bloodsaw, her supervisor, Terry Black, and the patient's daughter, Debra Wooten, as well as discrepancies in medical records, led the Court to conclude that Ms. Bloodsaw failed to demonstrate a compensable injury. Consequently, the Court denied her request for payment for emergent care.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingChest Wall InjuryPatient AssistanceConflicting TestimonyDenied ClaimTennessee LawMedical RecordsEmergency CareEmployment Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ7741851
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

SANDRA GALINDO vs. WARNER BROTHERS, INC.

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The defendant, Warner Brothers, seeks reconsideration of an order compelling payment for a panel Qualified Medical Evaluator's (PQME) second report, arguing it lacked substantial medical evidence. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found no legal basis for the defendant's refusal to pay. The defendant's claims of inaccurate medical history in the PQME's report were unsubstantiated despite multiple opportunities to present evidence. The Board affirmed the obligation to pay the PQME's fees, penalties, and interest.

Panel QMEPetition for ReconsiderationOrder to PayMedical-legal costsSubstantial medical evidenceLabor Code Section 462260-day payment periodPenalty and interestFrivolous actionsDue process
References
6
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Warner v. Travelers Insurance Company

Warner, an employee of Todd Shipyard Corporation, sustained an eye injury while working on the S.S. Greenwich. He filed a claim with the Industrial Accident Board of Texas, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Warner then sued in the District Court of Galveston County for $2,950 under Texas Workmen’s Compensation Law, but the case was again dismissed for want of jurisdiction. He appealed this dismissal. The central issue is whether his claim falls under Texas Workmen's Compensation Law or the Federal Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Act, particularly concerning the "twilight zone" doctrine established in Davis v. Department of Labor. The court analyzed several precedents, distinguishing cases where the work was incidental to non-maritime activities. Ultimately, the court determined that Warner's work was purely maritime, not falling within the "twilight zone," and therefore, the Federal Act provided the exclusive remedy, affirming the trial court's dismissal.

Workmen's CompensationMaritime LawAdmiralty JurisdictionFederal Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' ActTwilight Zone DoctrineJurisdiction DisputeEye InjuryShipyard WorkerRepair WorkNavigable Waters
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 404 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