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. ADJ6754063
Regular
Jun 06, 2013

GLENN WILLIAMS vs. WARNER BROTHERS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

This case involves Glenn Williams, who claimed industrial injuries to his back, neck, shoulders, and elbows while employed by Warner Brothers Entertainment, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ), who found the applicant's testimony credible. The WCJ's decision was supported by the Agreed Medical Examiner, Dr. Angerman, who concluded the applicant sustained industrial injuries due to arduous employment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeAgreed Medical ExaminerSub rosa filmContinuous traumaIndustrial injuryCredibility findingOrthopedic complaintsSign writer
References
1
Case No. ADJ7928242
Regular

TOYYA LASSERE vs. WARNER BROTHERS HOME ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

Defendant Warner Brothers Home Entertainment filed two Petitions for Removal regarding Toyya Lassere's workers' compensation claim. Subsequently, defendant filed a Notice of Settlement Agreement and requested the withdrawal of both petitions. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both Petitions for Removal as requested by the defendant.

Petitions for RemovalWithdrawal of PetitionsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissalSettlement AgreementRequest for WithdrawalPermissibly Self-InsuredVan Nuys District Office
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Satellite Sports, Inc. v. Time Warner Entertainment Co.

National Satellite Sports, Inc. (NSS) filed a complaint alleging that Time Warner Entertainment Co. L.P. violated anti-piracy provisions of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605). NSS held exclusive rights to broadcast a boxing match to commercial customers, but Time Warner, a cable broadcaster, allowed its pay-per-view broadcast to be utilized by commercial establishments. Time Warner moved to dismiss, arguing NSS lacked standing and that its actions were authorized. The Court denied the motion, finding NSS had standing and that Time Warner's authorization for commercial use was unlawful.

Anti-piracyCommunications ActSatellite broadcastingCable broadcastingStanding to sueMotion to dismissUnlawful authorizationPay-per-viewCommercial establishmentsInterception of signals
References
13
Case No. ADJ6617683
Regular
Nov 03, 2011

SAMMY BRAN vs. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE c/o CHARTIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Defendant Warner Brothers' Petition for Removal. Warner Brothers sought to rescind an Order of Joinder and dismiss a Petition for Contribution, arguing the contribution petition was untimely. The WCJ found Warner Brothers failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that their petition was based on an incorrect assumption about the filing date. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and admonished Warner Brothers' counsel for filing a potentially frivolous petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalPetition for RemovalOrder of JoinderPetition for ContributionUntimelyIrreparable InjuryLabor Code §5310Swedlow Inc. v. WCAB (Smith)EAMS/FileNet
References
1
Case No. ADJ1624407 (VNO 0535954)
Regular
Oct 21, 2010

ALFREDO SEPULVEDA vs. WARNER BROS., PSI, PARAMOUNT PICTURES, PSI, CAST & CREW ENTERTAINMENT, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, AMERICAN CASUALTY CO. OF READING, PA

The Appeals Board dismissed Warner Brothers' petition for removal, finding it was not the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the WCJ's order awarding medical-legal transportation and lodging expenses. The Board also denied the petition as a petition for reconsideration by operation of law, as it was filed more than 60 days prior. Even if the merits were considered, the petition would have been denied. The employer's arguments regarding Labor Code section 4621(d) and the doctor's report were implicitly rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorMedical-Legal TransportationLodging ExpenseLabor Code Section 4621(d)Substantial EvidenceFalse HistoryWCJ Report
References
1
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
Showing 1-10 of 419 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