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

Hine v. Mineta

This case addresses claims of gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII. Following a three-week trial, a jury found for the plaintiff on the hostile work environment claim but awarded no damages for emotional distress or net back wages, instead granting $58,625.86 for net loss of benefits. This memorandum supplements the Court's earlier oral decisions, formally adopting the jury's advisory verdict which denied back pay. The Court also denied front pay, concluding that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages by not actively seeking suitable employment for over seven years and that any such award would be overly speculative. Consequently, the Court affirmed the denial of back pay and denied the plaintiff's request for front pay.

Gender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VII Civil Rights ActAdvisory Jury VerdictBack PayFront PayMitigation of DamagesEmotional DistressAir Traffic Controller
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2006

Capital Z Financial Services Fund II, L.P. v. Health Net, Inc.

The case concerns four limited partnerships, collectively known as Cap Z, that invested $100 million to finance Superior National Insurance Group's acquisition of workers' compensation insurers (BIG) from Health Net. Cap Z alleged that Health Net misrepresented and concealed critical information regarding BIG's inadequate loss reserves, leading to significant financial losses when both Superior and BIG became insolvent. Initially, the IAS court sustained a breach of contract claim but dismissed fraud and implied covenant claims. On appeal, the court, applying Delaware law as stipulated in the agreements, determined that Cap Z's contractual claims were derivative of Superior's and therefore lacked standing. The appellate court also found the fraud and implied covenant claims to be without merit, even under New York law, citing disclaimers and Cap Z's own due diligence. Consequently, the court dismissed the entire complaint.

Shareholder Derivative ActionBreach of ContractFraudulent InducementImplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingChoice of LawCorporate AcquisitionInsolvencyFinancial MisrepresentationInvestment LossStanding to Sue
References
12
Case No. ADJ4702604 (MON 0293583) ADJ2539407 (MON 0293581) ADJ593062 (MON 0310215)
Regular
May 03, 2010

MARLU HARRIS vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By INTERCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, HEALTH NET, AIG

This case involves two alleged cumulative industrial injuries for Marlu Harris, one with Health Net and another with the County of Los Angeles. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration. The WCAB agreed with the WCJ's admission of error, concluding that based on Labor Code sections 5412 and 5500.5, only one cumulative trauma date of injury applies. This decision rescinds the previous award, finding that there was no compensable disability or wage loss during the Health Net employment to establish a separate injury date. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a revised decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMarly HarrisCounty of Los AngelesHealth NetAIGADJ4702604ADJ2539407ADJ593062ReconsiderationJoint Findings of Fact and Award
References
1
Case No. ADJ7508584
Regular
Apr 14, 2025

CALVIN WRIGHT vs. HEALTH NET, INC.; ARCH INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered a Petition for Removal filed by the defendants (Health Net, Inc., Arch Insurance Co., and Sedgwick Management Services, Inc.) against applicant Calvin Wright. The petition challenged an order issued by WCJ Elena Jackson on March 7, 2024, which had set specific issues for trial. Citing the report of WCJ Cirina A. Rose, who identified an oversight by WCJ Jackson and factual discrepancies, the Appeals Board found that removal was warranted. Consequently, the Board granted the Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's March 7, 2024 decision, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalDecision After RemovalRescindedReturned to Trial LevelWCJ Report and RecommendationJoint Compromise & ReleaseFuture Medical OpenMPN IssueHome CarePetition for Removal Timeliness
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Buy Buy Baby, Inc.

Plaintiff Erika Flores was fired by defendant Buy Buy Baby, Inc. on December 31, 1998, and filed suit alleging pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and New York State Human Rights Law. Flores claims her supervisor's demeanor changed after disclosing her pregnancy and that her termination was discriminatory, despite no prior warnings. The defendant argued the termination was due to absenteeism and poor performance. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that Flores presented sufficient evidence to create a material issue of fact regarding pretext. The court also denied the defendant's motion to strike claims for reinstatement and front pay, citing outstanding issues regarding the applicability of after-acquired evidence.

Pregnancy Discrimination ActTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationPretextPrima Facie CaseAfter-Acquired EvidenceReinstatementFront Pay
References
20
Case No. CV-24-1199
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Tawon Cooper

Claimant Tawon Cooper sustained work-related injuries and was awarded schedule loss of use (SLU) benefits. The central dispute involved the calculation of counsel fees for claimant's attorney, Grey & Grey, LLP, specifically whether fees should be based on the gross SLU award or the net SLU award after deducting employer's advance wage payments. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled for fees based on the net SLU award, a decision upheld by the full Board after review. Claimant's attorney appealed this determination to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting Workers' Compensation Law § 24 (2) (c) to mandate the deduction of all "previous payments," including wages, before calculating counsel fees, and upheld the Board's discretion to make counsel fees a lien against the claimant's net SLU award.

Workers' Compensation Law § 24Counsel Fees CalculationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Lien against AwardEmployer ReimbursementStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewWage AdvanceNet SLUGross SLU
References
4
Case No. ADJ8874049
Regular
Apr 18, 2014

VERN FLEMING vs. BROOKLYN NETS FKA NEW JERSEY NETS, TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, affirming the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) recommendation. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found that the defendant failed to demonstrate such prejudice or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the petition was denied based on the reasoning in the WCJ's report.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ Reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmadequate remedyextraordinary remedyCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. ADJ1839512 (MON 0260506)
Regular
Jul 05, 2018

EVERARDO AVINA vs. ABBA RUBBER, INC., SAFECO INSURANCE COMPAY

This case involves a workers' compensation appeal where the defendant, Abba Rubber, Inc., petitioned for reconsideration. The Appeals Board granted the petition. The Board affirmed the original decision but amended it to clarify that the applicant's net weekly permanent total disability rate, after attorney fees, is $242.73. This net rate is based on a weekly award of $356.38, with reductions for attorney fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationPermanent Total DisabilityAttorney Fee CalculationFindings of Fact and AwardNet Weekly RateTemporary Disability IndemnityFindings of Fact No. 2
References
0
Case No. ADJ8455911
Regular
Nov 20, 2013

SANDRA VACA vs. CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST.,, SCHOOL DIST.,, CORVEL CORP.

This case concerns a dispute over the correct temporary disability indemnity rate for an applicant who worked as both a substitute teacher and a self-employed realtor. The applicant's net income as a realtor, after expenses, was used for the calculation, not her gross receipts. The Board rescinded the original award and found the applicant entitled to $395.93 per week in temporary disability, affirming the use of net income and earnings up to her last day of work. The issue of attorney's fees was deferred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTemporary Disability RateAverage Weekly EarningsSelf-Employed IncomeGross ReceiptsNet IncomeEarning CapacitySubstitute TeacherIndustrial InjuryGross Income
References
3
Case No. ADJ11672418
Regular
Mar 07, 2023

JOSE MARTIN vs. JORGE PERIBAN, FINISH LINE SELF INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct arithmetic errors in the original award regarding temporary disability indemnity, net temporary disability owed, and attorney's fees. The Board amended the decision to reflect accurate calculations for temporary disability ($17,524.03 total, $5,597.06 net owed) and corresponding attorney's fees ($839.56). However, the Board denied the defendant's request for a credit against temporary disability for a supposed permanent disability overpayment, as the issue was not properly raised and equity did not support the claim.

Temporary disability indemnityNet temporary disabilityAttorney's feesPermanent disability indemnityCredit for overpaymentPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ decisionAmended Findings and AwardPermissibly Self-InsuredExercise rider
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 170 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