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. ADJ9701120, ADJ10123214, ADJ10696420
Regular
Jan 16, 2020

SANDRA GENOVESE vs. DENNY'S INC., HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a Joint Findings of Facts and Orders that had set aside a settlement agreement based on findings of duress and coercion by the applicant's former attorney. The WCAB found insufficient evidence in the record, particularly the absence of witness testimony and specific exhibits, to support a finding of duress or coercion by a preponderance of the evidence. The matter is returned to the trial level for applicant to present further evidence. Applicant's subsequent petition for reconsideration of the WCAB's decision to grant reconsideration was dismissed as moot.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings of Facts and OrdersPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalJoint Third Party-Compromise & Releaseduresscoerciongood causestipulationsettlement agreement
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hines v. Miller

The petitioner, convicted of second-degree murder after a guilty plea in New York Supreme Court, sought a writ of habeas corpus, arguing due process violations for the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea without new counsel or an evidentiary hearing, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court denied the petition, concluding that there was no constitutional right to an evidentiary hearing under the circumstances and no actual conflict of interest regarding counsel's performance. The court found that the petitioner's allegations of coercion contradicted his prior statements during the plea allocution and that the alleged coercion by counsel amounted to professional advice. A certificate of appealability was granted on the two primary questions.

Habeas CorpusGuilty Plea WithdrawalDue ProcessIneffective Assistance of CounselEvidentiary HearingActual Conflict of InterestRule 32(e)State Court RemediesAEDPA
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Revette

This case involves a petitioner seeking the return of her child, Robert Revette, whose care and custody were voluntarily transferred to the Commissioner of Social Services of Onondaga County. After several informal requests for the child's return were denied, the petitioner formally executed a document permanently surrendering the child for adoption. She subsequently filed a motion to show cause, contending that the surrender was signed under duress and coercion. The court found no evidence of duress or coercion, ruling that the surrender was voluntary and duly executed. Additionally, the petitioner failed to provide proper, formal notice of her intent to revoke the surrender within the allowed 30-day period. Consequently, the court dismissed her petition for the revocation of the surrender and the return of the child.

Child CustodyVoluntary SurrenderRevocation of SurrenderDuress and CoercionFoster CareAdoptionParental RightsSocial Services LawNotice RequirementMental Health History
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Marcus

Defendant Glenn Marcus was convicted of sex trafficking and forced labor stemming from his abusive BDSM relationship with Jodi, who he coerced into performing sexual acts and labor for his commercial website. Marcus moved for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, arguing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) did not apply to intimate relationships or consensual BDSM, and that there was insufficient evidence of a nexus between his force/coercion and the commercial sex acts or labor. The court denied both motions, upholding the convictions. The court found the TVPA statutes were broadly applicable, rejecting a narrow interpretation based on intimate relationships, and affirmed that evidence sufficiently demonstrated Marcus's use of non-consensual force and coercion to compel Jodi's participation in commercial sex acts and website-related labor, despite the BDSM context.

Sex TraffickingForced LaborBDSMRule 29 MotionRule 33 MotionTrafficking Victims Protection ActStatutory InterpretationRule of LenityCommercial Sex ActsSexual Exploitation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Lasky

Defendant Clark Lasky, president of Employee Health Plan Administrators, Inc. (EHPA), was convicted in 1998 of embezzling funds from an employee welfare benefit plan and mail fraud. This stemmed from his failure to remit health benefit monies collected from employers to Local 119, Brotherhood of Industrial Workers (BIW). Lasky moved to withdraw his guilty plea under Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asserting coercion by the Government and belatedly claiming innocence. He cited a favorable civil judgment in a related case as support for his innocence. The Court denied Lasky's motion, finding his coercion claims contradicted by the extensive plea allocution record. The court concluded that his asserted innocence was a "change of heart" motivated by the favorable civil decision and apprehension about sentencing, and that no evidentiary hearing was necessary as his allegations contradicted the record.

Guilty Plea WithdrawalRule 32(e) F.R.Cr.P.Coercion ClaimVoluntariness of PleaPlea AllocutionEmbezzlementMail FraudERISA ViolationFederal Criminal ProcedureSentencing Guidelines
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Private Sanitation Industry Ass'n of Nassau/Suffolk, Inc.

The United States filed a civil RICO action against Salvatore Avellino, alleging racketeering activity related to solid waste collection on Long Island, including extortion, bribery, and coercion against rival carters. Avellino had previously pleaded guilty to coercion and conspiracy to commit bribery in state court. The government moved for partial summary judgment. Avellino cross-moved to stay the civil proceedings pending grand jury investigations, citing his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court denied the stay, emphasizing that pre-indictment stays are generally disfavored and that the public interest in resolving corruption in the solid waste industry outweighs Avellino's interest in avoiding the Fifth Amendment dilemma, especially given his prior invocations of the privilege. The court granted Avellino 20 days to respond to the government's summary judgment motion.

RICORacketeeringCivil RICOOrganized CrimeSolid Waste ManagementExtortionBriberyCoercionFifth Amendment PrivilegeStay of Civil Proceedings
References
17
Case No. ADJ7897975, ADJ7897976
Regular
Jun 25, 2013

RIGOBERTO CATALAN vs. WILLIAM LENIHAM

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of an order dismissing his workers' compensation cases with prejudice. The applicant's attorney asserts the dismissal was procured through employer coercion, promising a settlement in exchange for dismissing the cases and counsel. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that further proceedings are necessary to determine the propriety of the dismissal. The prior dismissal order was rescinded, and the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing ApplicationRescindedReturn to Trial LevelIllegally UninsuredBackdoor SettlementStatus ConferencePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Suspending ActionAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ8812885, ADJ10587799, ADJ10587800
Regular
Dec 24, 2018

DINNA DEESE vs. TWIN RIVERS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SCHOOLS INSURANCE AUTHORITY

This case involves Dinna Deese's second petition for reconsideration of a prior dismissal of her claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed her current petition as untimely, as it was filed significantly past the statutory deadline. Furthermore, the Board refused to entertain a successive petition absent a new grievance, which was not present here. The Board strongly advised the applicant to present her coercion claims to the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) for consideration at a hearing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalTimelinessJurisdictional LimitSuccessive PetitionCompromise and ReleaseCoercionWCJHearing
References
7
Case No. ADJ755705 (VNO 0550346)
Regular
Nov 05, 2012

SKY SHADOW vs. PHARMAVITE LLC, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The applicant sought to set aside a prior Compromise and Release based on alleged fraud and coercion, but her petition was filed untimely. The WCAB found no good cause to grant the petition and noted procedural deficiencies, including lack of verification and proper proof of service, which would have also warranted dismissal. Therefore, the Board upheld the original decision denying the Petition to Reopen.

Petition to ReconsiderPetition to ReopenCompromise and ReleaseFraudCoercionUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 5903Labor Code Section 5803Good CauseVerified Pleadings
References
0
Case No. ADJ9023896
Regular
Aug 21, 2014

SANDRA MAYER vs. ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER, ALPHA FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Sandra Mayer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's findings. The Board found Applicant's testimony regarding undocumented injections and coercion by Dr. Bohlander lacked credibility. Applicant's claim was questioned due to inconsistent statements about the injury date and mechanism, particularly a dog brushing incident claimed as non-industrial. The Board also admonished Applicant's attorney for attaching excess documents to the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportCredibility FindingGarza v.Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.WCAB Rule 10842Surgical TechnicianOccupational Group 212DWC-1 Claim FormEstoppel
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 55 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