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. ADJ7636863
Regular
Apr 02, 2012

KARINE GABRIYELYAN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SOCIAL SERVICES-IHSS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained by a home care provider while transporting her client, who was experiencing a medical emergency, to the client's daughter's home on Christmas Eve. The applicant testified she acted out of concern for the client's well-being, not for personal reasons, and that the injury occurred when the client fell on her on the stairs. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petitioner's request for reconsideration, finding substantial evidence that the applicant's actions were within the course and scope of her employment and that their request for a continuance was improperly handled. The WCJ's credibility findings were given significant weight in the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJudge's ReportApplicant's OccupationHome Care ProviderDate of InjuryLumbar SpineCervical SpinePsycheSleep Disorder
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1988

In re Kaplan

Kenneth F. Kaplan, an attorney, was charged with professional misconduct, specifically the conversion of client funds. He received a $25,000 settlement check for his client, Josephine Burton, which he deposited into his fiancée's savings account and used for personal expenses, failing to maintain it in a proper escrow account for 5.5 years. Kaplan claimed he segregated cash in safe-deposit boxes, expecting to pay Burton in cash due to her being on welfare. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee's Hearing Panel rejected his defense, concluding he misappropriated his client's money and converted her funds. The court confirmed the Panel's findings and recommendations, ordering Kaplan's disbarment for the conversion of client funds.

Attorney misconductClient funds conversionEscrow account violationDisciplinary actionProfessional responsibilityCode of Professional ResponsibilityWorkers' Compensation LawSafe-deposit boxDisbarmentAttorney ethics
References
2
Case No. ADJ8067615
Regular
Apr 15, 2015

Latonia Bowman vs. SARA LEE CORPORATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an attorney's request to be relieved due to irreconcilable differences with his client. The applicant had accused the attorney of misconduct and collusion with the insurance company. Although the applicant later expressed remorse and a desire to be a better client, the Appeals Board found the attorney-client relationship had irrevocably deteriorated. Consequently, the Board granted the attorney's petition and relieved his firm as counsel for the applicant.

Petition for RemovalDismissal of AttorneyIrreconcilable DifferencesAttorney-Client PrivilegeMisconductFraudCollusionBreakdown of RelationshipWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
0
Case No. ADJ10324875
Regular
Sep 19, 2016

YU QIN ZHU vs. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES IHSS, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision. The Board found that the applicant, a caregiver for IHSS, did not sustain an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment when she was hit by a car while cycling between clients. The Board determined that her commute between clients did not fall under an exception to the "going and coming" rule as she chose her clients, work hours, and method of transportation for her own convenience. Therefore, the Board substituted its own finding that the injury was not compensable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIHSSYork Risk Services GroupInc.ADJ10324875Petition for ReconsiderationOpinion and OrderFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Judge (WCJ)Labor Code Section 3351.5
References
8
Case No. ADJ6930467, ADJ550500 (MON 0358506)
Regular
Jun 16, 2014

IVAN MIRANDA vs. PAFCO/POWER PEO, ORISKA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by defense firm Hitzke & Associates regarding sanctions imposed jointly and severally against them and their client, Oriska Insurance. The sanctions stemmed from Oriska's bad faith failure to pay a Compromise and Release agreement after being ordered to do so. The Appeals Board dismissed Hitzke & Associates' petition because they failed to serve it on their own client, Oriska Insurance. This failure violated WCAB Rule 10450(f) and demonstrated an adverse interest by the firm against its client concerning the sanctioned liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint and Several LiabilitySanctionsBad Faith ConductCompromise and Release AgreementLabor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5814.5WCJDefense Counsel
References
0
Case No. ADJ2875706 (STK 0185271)
Regular
Mar 02, 2020

APRIL PREMO WILLIAMS vs. THE HOME DEPOT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied April Williams' petition for reconsideration of a decision finding she sustained an industrial injury. Williams sought to disqualify defense counsel, Ray Stanek, alleging he represented adverse clients and failed to object to court violations of her rights. The Board found no evidence Stanek represented adverse clients, as Williams had never been his client. Furthermore, Stanek had no affirmative duty to act on Williams' behalf regarding alleged court misconduct. Consequently, the Board found no basis for disqualification and denied the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAward and OpiniondisqualificationRay StanekAlbert & MackenzieHelmsman Management ServicesADAdue process
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Durst

John E. Durst, Jr., an attorney, misappropriated $500,000 in settlement funds intended for his client, Cirro Rodriguez, which should have been used to purchase an annuity. Durst made inconsistent payments to Rodriguez before ceasing them entirely. He subsequently failed to provide an accounting to new counsel or cooperate with the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District's investigation, despite multiple requests and subpoenas. Facing disciplinary charges for professional misconduct, including misappropriation of client funds and non-cooperation, Durst submitted an affidavit of resignation. The Court accepted his resignation, disbarred him, and ordered his name stricken from the roll of attorneys, also noting potential restitution and reimbursement obligations to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection.

Misappropriation of fundsProfessional misconductAttorney disciplineDisbarmentClient fundsFailure to cooperateResignationGrievance CommitteeJudiciary Law violationsRules of Professional Conduct violations
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. Roe

The defendant attorney unlawfully collected a fee of $10,750 from the plaintiff client for representation in an unemployment benefits claim. The New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (the Board) subsequently ordered the attorney to make restitution of $5,356, which he failed to do. Consequently, the plaintiff client initiated a small claims action to enforce the Board's order, seeking the court's jurisdictional maximum of $3,000. The court rejected the attorney's statute of limitations defense, citing multiple reasons including issue preclusion and the continuous representation doctrine. Ultimately, the court awarded the plaintiff client a $3,000 judgment and referred the attorney to the Grievance Committee for apparent violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Statute of LimitationsUnemployment InsuranceAttorney FeesRestitutionIssue PreclusionCollateral EstoppelSmall Claims CourtProfessional MisconductCode of Professional ResponsibilityContinuous Representation Doctrine
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

PIERCE & WEISS, LLP. v. Subrogation Partners LLC

Plaintiff Pierce & Weiss, LLP sued Subrogation Partners LLC, AON Recovery, Inc., and AON Re, Inc. for unpaid legal fees related to a breach of an attorney-client retainer contract. The central issue revolved around a motion for admission pro hac vice filed by attorneys Brian Letofsky and Daniel Watkins, seeking to represent Pierce & Weiss. Defendants opposed, arguing a conflict of interest due to Mr. Letofsky's prior and ongoing representation of Subrogation and AON in other matters. The Court determined that AON was a current client and Subrogation a former client of Mr. Letofsky, thus creating a conflict of interest due to divided loyalties. Consequently, the Court denied the motions for admission pro hac vice for both Mr. Letofsky and his partner, Mr. Watkins, disqualifying their firm, Watkins & Letofsky, from representing the plaintiff.

Attorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestPro Hac Vice MotionAttorney-Client RelationshipLegal EthicsLaw Firm RepresentationFee DisputeSubrogationRetainer AgreementProfessional Conduct Rules
References
32
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03294 [184 AD3d 223]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2020

Matter of Mauser

Marc R. Mauser, an attorney, was publicly censured by the Appellate Division, First Department, for professional misconduct. The Attorney Grievance Committee initiated disciplinary action against him for neglecting a client's personal injury case, failing to communicate for approximately 18 months, and making misrepresentations to the client, mediator, and the Committee regarding the case status and reasons for delays. Mauser also failed to diligently finalize a settlement and disburse funds promptly. The parties reached a joint agreement for discipline by consent, stipulating to violations of several Rules of Professional Conduct, including neglect of a legal matter, failure to promptly comply with client requests for information, failure to act with reasonable diligence, inadequate supervision of staff, and engaging in dishonest conduct. Despite aggravating factors, mitigating factors such as no prior discipline and acceptance of responsibility led to the agreed-upon sanction of public censure, which the Court granted.

Attorney disciplineprofessional misconductneglect of dutyfailure to communicatemisrepresentationpublic censureRules of Professional Conductsettlement delayclient communicationsupervisory failures
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 236 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