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

Holick v. Cellular Sales of New York, LLC

Plaintiffs, a group of Sales Representatives, initiated an action against defendants Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. and Cellular Sales of New York, L.L.C., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law. They claimed misclassification as independent contractors, which led to a deprivation of guaranteed compensation, including minimum wage and overtime. Defendants responded with motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, and alternatively, to compel mediation/arbitration based on clauses in the sales agreements. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, affirming its power to adjudicate FLSA claims. However, it granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration, determining that the mediation clauses were valid, unwaived, and that FLSA claims are arbitrable under federal law, leading to the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. All other pending motions, including plaintiffs' request for conditional collective action certification, were subsequently denied as moot.

FLSALabor LawMisclassificationIndependent ContractorCollective ActionArbitrationMediationSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sorias v. National Cellular USA, Inc.

This is a patent infringement case where Plaintiffs Yeoshua Sorias and Zilicon Accessories LLC alleged patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and unfair competition against two groups of defendants: Prong Defendants (Yishai Z. Pliner, Lloyd Gladstone, and Prong, LLC) and NC Defendants (National Cellular USA, Inc., Mark Grossman, Zeev Grossman, and David Grossman). Plaintiffs claimed their patented detachably integrated battery charger design for mobile phones was infringed. The court granted Prong Defendants' motion for summary judgment of non-infringement on the design patent and dismissed unfair competition claims as federally preempted. For NC Defendants, the court dismissed claims regarding provisional patent rights and trade secret misappropriation, holding that a 'new product idea' is not a protected trade secret. All remaining state law claims against NC Defendants were dismissed without prejudice, with the court declining supplemental jurisdiction given ongoing state court litigation. The case is currently stayed pending a USPTO review of the '486 Patent.

Patent InfringementTrade Secrets MisappropriationUnfair CompetitionMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentDesign PatentProvisional Patent RightsLicense AgreementNon-Disclosure AgreementFederal Preemption
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. American Cellular, Inc.

Plaintiff Virginia Reed sued her employer, American Cellular Inc. (ACI), alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and THRA, and retaliation. Reed claimed her demotion from Store Manager to Manager of Business Account Development, leading to a significant pay reduction, was motivated by her District Manager Sherry Riddle's discriminatory animus against older workers, and that Riddle's bias was shared by co-owner Steve Ingram. After filing an EEOC complaint, Reed alleged further retaliation by the new store manager, Brenda, through unfounded warnings, reduced hours, and interference with her sales. The Court found sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence of discrimination and retaliation, including Riddle's explicit ageist remarks and the temporal proximity of adverse actions to Reed's protected activity. Consequently, the Court denied ACI's motion for summary judgment, allowing Reed's claims to proceed to trial.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentADEATHRADirect Evidence of DiscriminationCircumstantial Evidence of DiscriminationMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPretext Argument
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lasky v. Phones for All, Inc. (In Re Phones for All, Inc.)

This case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision regarding an employee's claim for severance pay. Isaac Lasky, a former employee of Phones for All, Inc., sought administrative expense priority for his severance pay claim of $432,601.65 after his employment was terminated post-petition. The District Court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, denying priority status. The court found that the employment agreement's severance provision was neither in lieu of notice nor based on length of service, and the transaction occurred entirely pre-petition without a post-petition benefit to the debtor-in-possession. Therefore, Lasky's claim was not entitled to administrative expense priority.

BankruptcySeverance PayAdministrative ExpensePriority ClaimDebtor-in-PossessionEmployment AgreementPost-PetitionPre-PetitionNorthern District of TexasAppeal
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Phones for All, Inc.

Isaac Lasky moved the court for an administrative expense allowance under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1) from the bankruptcy estate of Phones for All, Inc., a Chapter 11 debtor. Lasky's claim was for severance benefits derived from a pre-petition employment contract, after his post-petition termination without cause. Phones for All and its Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors opposed the motion, arguing the severance benefits were a pre-petition claim, not a post-petition administrative expense. The court analyzed the Bankruptcy Code, specifically §§ 503(b)(1) and 507, noting that severance pay is explicitly included for priority unsecured wage claims but not for administrative expenses. The court concluded that Lasky's severance benefits constituted a conditional pre-petition right and did not qualify as an actual, necessary cost of preserving the estate post-petition. Therefore, the court denied Lasky's motion for the allowance and payment of an administrative expense.

BankruptcyAdministrative ExpenseSeverance PayEmployment ContractPost-Petition TerminationPre-Petition Claim11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)11 U.S.C. § 507Creditors' CommitteeDebtor in Possession
References
18
Case No. ADJ7171471
Regular
Jan 19, 2016

CARLOS POLK vs. CHARGERS FOOTBALL COMPANY, LLC, dba SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, adjusted by BERKLEY SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING MANAGERS LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a prior award, affirming the applicant's cumulative injury claim against the Chargers Football Company. The Board found that the applicant's medical reports from Drs. Fonseca and Nudleman were admissible as treating and consulting physician reports, respectively. Crucially, the Board upheld the administrative law judge's finding that the statute of limitations did not bar the claim, as the employer failed to prove the applicant had actual knowledge of his right to file a workers' compensation claim. The prior award for permanent partial disability, medical treatment, and attorney's fees was thus affirmed.

Cumulative injuryStatute of limitationsAffirmative defenseActual knowledgeBurden of proofTreating physicianConsulting physicianAdvocate's medical legal reportsPanel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME)Medical legal reports
References
5
Case No. MDL No. 1421
Regular Panel Decision

Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Nokia, Inc.

Justice Hecht's dissenting opinion argues against the majority's application of the eight-corners rule in cellphone radiation class actions. He contends that while plaintiffs allege "biological injury," they meticulously avoid claiming actual "bodily injury" damages to facilitate class certification. Hecht asserts that the claimed damages, primarily for headsets, are not "because of bodily injury" and that class members are not required to have used phones or suffered personal injury. He highlights class counsel's explicit disclaimers of individual injury claims, concluding that insurers should not be compelled to defend these claims as they do not actually or potentially involve damages due to bodily injury.

class actioninsurance coverageduty to defendbodily injurybiological injurycellphone radiationpleading standardscausationdamageseight-corners rule
References
10
Case No. ADJ6676965
Regular
Feb 18, 2014

RANDALL GODFREY vs. SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Randall Godfrey's workers' compensation claim against the San Diego Chargers for cumulative trauma injuries sustained as a professional football player. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original award, and returned the case for further development of the medical record regarding apportionment of disability. Both medical experts' reports were deemed insufficient to establish apportionment of the applicant's permanent disability. The Board also deferred the determination of an additional 15% permanent disability award for failure to offer work.

Cumulative traumaApportionmentSpecific injuryPermanent disabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerLabor Code section 4658Medical evidenceQualified Medical EvaluatorWhole Person ImpairmentIndustrial injury
References
7
Case No. ADJ8017052
Regular
Sep 10, 2013

BILLY BABER vs. KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Billy Baber's workers' compensation claim against the Kansas City Chiefs, San Diego Chargers, and Travelers Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the original decision. While affirming the June 17, 2013 decision in most respects, the Board amended the findings of fact and award to state that the applicant has not met his burden of proof for temporary disability, and thus, no temporary disability is awarded.

ADJ8017052Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardTemporary DisabilityBurden of ProofAwardDecision After ReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ8485371
Regular
Dec 01, 2014

MICHAEL (MIKE) STRATTON vs. SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, ZENITH NORTH AMERICA, BUFFALO BILLS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reconsidered a prior decision regarding Michael Stratton's cumulative injury claim against the San Diego Chargers and Buffalo Bills. While the original judge found Stratton's claim against the Bills timely, the Board reversed this, determining it was barred by the statute of limitations. The Board found that neither employer breached a duty to notify Stratton of his workers' compensation rights at the time of his employment. Therefore, the statute of limitations was not tolled, and Stratton's claim against the Buffalo Bills is dismissed.

WCABStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5405Date of InjuryTollingCumulative InjuryProfessional Football PlayerSan Diego ChargersBuffalo BillsZenith North America
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 120 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