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. MDL 381
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation

Defendants, manufacturers of Agent Orange, brought third-party actions against the United States government seeking indemnity and contribution for settlement payments made to veterans' wives and children. The government moved to dismiss these claims. The court reiterated that previous direct claims against the government by veterans, wives, and children were dismissed either by the Feres doctrine or for failure to prove a causal connection. The third-party plaintiffs and defendants concurred that Agent Orange causation could not be established with available evidence. Consequently, the court granted the government's motion, ruling that the Federal Tort Claims Act precludes recovery without government misfeasance, and dismissed all third-party claims against the government, along with any existing government claims against other parties.

Agent OrangeProduct LiabilityThird Party ActionIndemnityContributionFederal Tort Claims ActFeres DoctrineCausationMilitary VeteransClass Action Settlement
References
12
Case No. POM 0281587
Regular
May 02, 2008

ALINDA YELLOWHAIR vs. HAIR MASTERS, THE HARTFORD, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES (Adjusting Agent)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a prior award that improperly included disability from an admitted non-industrial shoulder injury. The Board reduced the applicant's permanent disability rating from 24% to 16% by removing the shoulder component and found that the defendant failed to meet the burden of proof for apportioning head and neck injury disability due to a subsequent motor vehicle accident. Consequently, the award for permanent disability indemnity was adjusted to reflect the 16% rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityReconsiderationApportionmentQualified Medical EvaluatorIndustrial InjuryNon-Industrial AccidentSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionCausation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Durkin

The plaintiff, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, initiated an action seeking a declaration that sections 213 and 213-a of the New York State Insurance Law prohibited the retroactive payment of a wage increase. This increase of $2.85 per week was awarded by the National War Labor Board to its insurance agents, dating back to the start of arbitration proceedings. The plaintiff argued these statutes, designed to prevent excessive post-facto compensation, made such retroactive payments unlawful. However, the trial court and Appellate Division, whose decision was affirmed, concluded that the statutes were not intended to interfere with the common practice of collective bargaining and arbitration, which frequently involves retroactive wage adjustments. The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind the insurance laws was to curb abuses like bonuses and gratuities, not to hinder ordinary and orderly wage-fixing mechanisms, thereby affirming the legality of the retroactive wage increase.

Insurance RegulationRetroactive CompensationCollective Bargaining DisputesWage Arbitration AwardNew York Insurance LawLabor Relations BoardStatutory InterpretationAppellate Court RulingEmployee Benefits LitigationContractual Agreements
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greece Support Service Employees Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations Board

This case concerns an appeal regarding the proper application of Civil Service Law § 209-a (1) (e) to salary provisions in an expired collective bargaining agreement between an unnamed petitioner and the Greece Central School District. The agreement, from July 1992 to June 1995, included cost-of-living adjustments for salary schedules during its term. After the agreement expired, the District continued existing salary schedules but ceased further cost-of-living adjustments for 1995-1996, prompting the petitioner to file an improper practice charge. The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision, concluding that the agreement did not mandate continued cost-of-living adjustments post-expiration. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's subsequent CPLR article 78 petition seeking annulment of PERB's determination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, deferring to PERB's expertise and finding its interpretation that the adjustments were limited to the agreement's term to be reasonable and legally permissible.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSalary AdjustmentCost-of-Living AdjustmentPublic EmployerImproper Practice ChargeCivil Service LawPublic Employment Relations BoardJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Statutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. 82-0021
Regular Panel Decision

Fraticelli v. Dow Chemical Co.

The case involves three civilian employees (Fraticelli, Oshita, Takatsuki) of the University of Hawaii who sued manufacturers of Agent Orange, the US, and the University's former Regents, alleging harm from exposure to Agent Orange in 1966-67. The plaintiffs developed various illnesses, which they attributed to Agent Orange exposure. The court denied class certification and found that claims against the chemical companies and former Regents were barred by Hawaii's two-year statute of limitations and, for the Regents, by the receipt of workers' compensation. Crucially, the court found no admissible evidence that Agent Orange caused the plaintiffs' illnesses, citing issues with expert testimony and the presence of other risk factors. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the action was dismissed.

Agent OrangeHerbicide ExposureToxic ChemicalsProduct LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationCausation DefenseSummary JudgmentClass Action DenialFederal Tort Claims Act
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bruzzese v. Guardsman Elevator Co.

In 1994, the claimant sustained head, neck, and back injuries at work, leading to an award for permanent partial disability, which included a wage expectancy adjustment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5). Following back surgery in 1998, the case was reopened, and the claimant was found to be temporarily totally disabled. Benefits for this temporary total disability were calculated based on the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of injury, without applying the wage expectancy adjustment. The claimant appealed, arguing that since the permanent partial disability preceded the temporary total disability, the wage expectancy adjustment should also apply to the latter period. The court disagreed, affirming the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, citing established case law that Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5) is applicable only to awards for permanent partial disability and not temporary disability.

Wage expectancyTemporary total disabilityPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' Compensation benefitsBack injuryAppellate reviewDisability calculationWorkers' Compensation BoardAverage weekly wage
References
1
Case No. ADJ1415058 (FRE 0192009) MF ADJ4686427 (FRE 0193449)
Regular
Dec 18, 2017

ANGEL VALENZUELA vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

The defendant employer sought removal to challenge an order compelling the deposition of their claims adjuster and production of documents. The defendant argued that as a legally uninsured employer, discovery from their adjuster (SCIF/SCS) required subpoenas, not just notice. The Appeals Board denied removal, holding that workers' compensation proceedings are not bound by civil discovery rules and the adjuster, as the employer's agent, is subject to discovery via notice. The Board found no irreparable prejudice and affirmed the WCJ's order compelling discovery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeMotion to Compel DepositionProduction of DocumentsState Compensation Insurance FundLegally Uninsured EmployerSubpoenaService of NoticeLabor Code
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Compagnie Nationale Air France

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought a preliminary injunction against Air France to prevent the unilateral cancellation of their collective bargaining agreement from January 3, 1977, and to compel Air France to continue recognizing IAM as the representative for cargo agents. Air France terminated the agreement citing Article XVII(q), which was triggered by a National Mediation Board (NMB) decision concerning United Air Lines freight agents, interpreting it as permitting separate bargaining units for cargo agents. IAM contended that Air France's actions violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and that Article XVII(q) itself was illegal and an attempt to bypass RLA procedures. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction, categorizing the dispute as both a 'minor dispute' concerning contract interpretation, falling under the National Railroad Adjustment Board's exclusive jurisdiction, and a 'major dispute' regarding employee representation, which is under the primary jurisdiction of the NMB. Since administrative remedies had not been exhausted, the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction was denied, and the case was dismissed.

Labor LawRailway Labor ActCollective BargainingPreliminary InjunctionJurisdictionMinor DisputeMajor DisputeNational Mediation BoardNational Railroad Adjustment BoardUnion Representation
References
23
Case No. ADJ312652 (STK 0204453)
Regular
Nov 14, 2008

AMADOR CISNEROS vs. CBC FRAMING and VIRGINIA SURETY, adjusted by CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED RESOURCES

This case involves a dispute over a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision to set aside a prior order and require the defendant to produce the claims adjuster for testimony. The WCAB denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no abuse of discretion by the judge who properly used WCAB Rule § 10859 to rescind the prior order and allow for further proceedings. The defendant's arguments regarding the applicant's failure to produce the adjuster at trial were deemed premature as no order compelling appearance had been issued.

WCABPetition for RemovalOrder Setting Aside FindingsWCJ DiscretionWCAB Rule 10859Claims AdjusterMandatory Settlement ConferencePetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10843(b)AOE/COE
References
1
Case No. ADJ9103955
Regular
Aug 25, 2014

EMMANUEL BRISENO vs. CALTRANS, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a workers' compensation appeal where the defendant, Caltrans, sought reconsideration of an award of temporary disability benefits. Caltrans argued the award should credit benefits already paid by the Employment Development Department (EDD) to prevent double recovery. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, agreeing that the award needed adjustment for the EDD's potential lien. Consequently, the Board amended the award to require the parties to adjust the benefit amount, taking into account the EDD's potential lien interest.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ9103955Emmanuel BrisenoCALTRANSPermissibly Self-InsuredState Compensation Insurance FundTemporary Disability IndemnityEmployment Development Department (EDD)EDD LienDouble Recovery
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,250 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