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

Claim of Macareno v. Son Yeng Produce, Inc.

A claimant sustained injuries while working as a delivery person for Son Yeng Produce, Inc., subsequently filing a workers' compensation claim. After several hearings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the case for accident, notice, and causal relationship, awarding the claimant a 10% schedule loss of use of the left foot and confirming the employment relationship. Son Yeng Produce, Inc. sought a rehearing from the Workers' Compensation Board, arguing lack of notice for a crucial hearing and disputing the employment relationship. The Board denied this application, noting that Son Yeng had proper notification and prior opportunities to contest the employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary, capricious, or abusive discretion in the denial.

Workers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewAdministrative ProcedureRehearing ApplicationNotice RequirementEmployment StatusCausal RelationshipSchedule Loss of UseJudicial DiscretionDue Process
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Double Green Produce, Inc. v. Forum Supermarket Inc.

Plaintiff Double Green Produce, Inc. sued Defendants Forum Supermarket Inc. and Hong Wen Cai for failure to pay for wholesale produce under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) and other claims. After Defendants defaulted, Plaintiff moved for default judgment. Although initially recommended for denial due to jurisdictional concerns, the Court allowed Plaintiff to submit additional information. Upon review, the Court found Forum to be a PACA 'dealer' and that Plaintiff had preserved its trust rights. The Court determined Defendants' default was willful and that Defendant Cai was personally liable for dissipating trust assets. Consequently, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, awarding $23,080.75 in damages, $5579.82 in prejudgment interest, and $4074.25 in attorneys' fees, totaling $32,734.82.

PACAPerishable Agricultural CommoditiesDefault JudgmentBreach of ContractStatutory TrustFiduciary DutyInterstate CommerceWholesale ProduceDamages AwardPrejudgment Interest
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donovan v. Eastern Milk Producers Cooperative Ass'n

Plaintiff Michael H. Donovan initiated legal action against Eastern Milk Producers Cooperative Association, Inc., Milk Marketing, Inc., and individuals Lewis Gardner and Edwin Schoen, alleging breach of employment contract and age discrimination under both the ADEA and New York Human Rights Law. Donovan contended his termination was age-based, while defendants cited performance issues. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, identifying genuine issues of material fact regarding both the age discrimination claim and the breach of contract. Additionally, the court granted in part and denied in part Donovan's cross-motion for summary judgment on various affirmative defenses, affirming individual liability under New York Human Rights Law but dismissing it under the ADEA.

Age DiscriminationEmployment ContractSummary Judgment MotionNew York Human Rights LawADEAIndividual LiabilityBoard DecisionBreach of ContractMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPretext
References
25
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02519 [182 AD3d 966]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Matter of Martinez v. New York Produce

Claimant Carlos Martinez, a delivery person, filed for workers' compensation benefits in April 2017 due to work-related head injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim for a traumatic brain injury but later denied an amendment to include bilateral knee injuries. Martinez, represented by counsel, sought Board review of the WCLJ's August 2018 decision. The Workers' Compensation Board denied this application, citing non-compliance with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) as it failed to specify when an objection was interposed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in deeming the application incomplete.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawProcedural ComplianceBoard RegulationsApplication for ReviewForm RB-89Objection TimingWCLJ DecisionTraumatic Brain Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 1997

Chopra v. Display Producers, Inc.

Madhu Chopra, an assembly line worker for Display Producers, Inc., sued her employer and supervisor Wims Fyilsiame for sexual harassment and discrimination under Title VII. Chopra alleged that Fyilsiame sexually harassed her after his promotion in 1992, making her working conditions intolerable and leading to her termination in 1996. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Chopra's claims were subject to arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act. The court denied the defendants' motion, holding that an arbitration clause in a CBA does not preclude an individual from litigating statutory claims under Title VII, distinguishing Gilmer from Alexander v. Gardner-Denver. The court also concluded that Title VII claims are not preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIICollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration ClauseSummary JudgmentFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActIndividual Statutory RightsUnion Representation
References
35
Case No. SAL 95992 SAL 95993 SAL 97616
Regular
Nov 19, 2007

JOSE G. LIZARRAGA (DECEASED) vs. WATSONVILLE PRODUCE, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a prior decision, holding that a compromise and release agreement was not binding at the time of the applicant's death because it was not "duly executed" as required by statute. Crucially, the defendant had not signed the agreement, and a material provision for a Medicare set-aside allocation was still pending approval. The Board found that the applicant's death occurred before all necessary steps for a validly executed agreement were completed, thus the agreement was not finalized.

Jose G. LizarragaWatsonville ProduceRepublic Indemnity Company of AmericaSAL 95992SAL 95993SAL 97616Compromise and ReleaseMedicare Set AsideDuly ExecutedLabor Code Section 5003
References
13
Case No. SAL 95992 SAL 95993 SAL 97616
Regular
Feb 06, 2008

JOSE G. LIZARRAGA (DECEASED) vs. WATSONVILLE PRODUCE, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case concerns whether a binding compromise and release agreement was formed before the applicant's death. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding that the agreement was not "duly executed" as required by statute because the defendant had not signed it, and a Medicare set aside provision was still pending. The majority concluded that a complete meeting of the minds on all material aspects was lacking, making the WCJ's prior finding of a binding agreement erroneous.

Compromise and ReleaseDuly ExecutedMedicare Set AsideBinding AgreementMeeting of the MindsLabor Code Section 5003Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Display Producers, Inc. v. Shulton, Inc.

The case involves Display Producers, Inc. (DPI) suing Shulton, Inc. and Ledan, Inc. concerning the design and advertising of a point-of-sale display for 'Cie' perfume. DPI alleges that Ledan falsely claimed to have created the display, violating the Lanham Act, and that Shulton is liable for contributory infringement by enabling Ledan's false representations. Shulton moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing DPI failed to state a claim under the Lanham Act because it did not allege Shulton knew or anticipated Ledan's wrongful conduct. The court granted Shulton's motion to dismiss, ruling that merely providing the opportunity for wrongdoing is insufficient for contributory infringement liability, and denied DPI's cross-motion to amend the complaint, subsequently dismissing pendent state claims.

Lanham Actcontributory infringementfalse advertisingreverse palming-offmotion to dismissFed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)Fed.R.Civ.P. 56Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)design disputeproduct display
References
17
Case No. ADJ16354315; ADJ17880338
Regular
Apr 04, 2025

ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ vs. CITY OF WATSONVILLE, LWP CLAIMS, INC.

Armando Rodriguez, the applicant, filed a Petition for Reconsideration after the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) denied his claims of discrimination under Labor Code section 132a and Serious and Willful Misconduct against his employer, the City of Watsonville. The applicant alleged discrimination following work injuries, citing a written reprimand and a purported plan of retaliation. However, the WCJ found no direct link between the work injury and the reprimand, noting that performance issues predated the injury, and that the employer followed medical restrictions. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report and denied the petition, concluding that the original findings were supported by the evidence and that the decision was timely issued.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 590960-day ruleEAMSTransmission to Appeals BoardReport and RecommendationAOE/COELabor Code section 132aSerious and Willful Misconduct
References
9
Case No. ADJ9413996; ADJ9413375; ADJ9413995; ADJ9413379; ADJ10118222; ADJ14275087
Regular
Aug 04, 2025

ERIC TAYLOR vs. CITY OF WATSONVILLE, TRINDEL INSURANCE FUND for COUNTY OF SAN BENITO

This case concerns petitions for reconsideration filed by defendants City of Watsonville and County of San Benito against an Amended Joint Findings, Award & Order from May 2, 2025. The original order found applicant Eric Taylor to have 100 percent permanent and total disability, with liability assigned to the County of San Benito. Both defendants dispute the method used for combining disability ratings and aspects of liability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted both petitions, deferring a final decision after reconsideration for further review of the merits and the entire record.

Labor Code section 5909Petition for ReconsiderationCombined Values ChartPermanent and Total DisabilityApportionmentSection 3212.5Section 4663(e)ContributionReimbursementMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 267 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