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

Fox News Network, LLC v. Tveyes, Inc.

Fox News Network, LLC filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against TVEyes, Inc., a media-monitoring service. The district court previously upheld TVEyes' core service as fair use but reserved judgment on four specific features: archiving, e-mailing, downloading, and date-time search. In this renewed decision, the court ruled that TVEyes' archiving function is fair use. The e-mailing function can also be fair use, provided TVEyes implements adequate protective measures. However, the court found that the downloading and date-time search functions are not fair use, concluding they go beyond TVEyes' transformative purpose and pose undue risks to Fox News' copyrights and derivative businesses.

Copyright InfringementFair Use DefenseMedia MonitoringTransformative UseSummary JudgmentArchivingEmail SharingVideo DownloadingDate-Time SearchDigital Rights
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guttierez v. Berryhill

Betsy Lee Guttierez applied for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability due to various mental health impairments. Her applications were denied by an Administrative Law Judge and the Appeals Council. Guttierez sought judicial review, arguing that the ALJ failed to properly assess her residual functional capacity (RFC) by rejecting the only medical opinion on her mental ability to work without providing adequate reasons or a function-by-function analysis. The Court agreed, finding the ALJ's RFC assessment unsupported by substantial evidence, as the ALJ, a non-medical professional, made a determination of Guttierez's mental capacity without relying on a medical opinion. Consequently, the Court granted Guttierez's motion, denied the Commissioner's motion, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsSSIALJ Decision ReviewRFC AssessmentMedical EvidenceMental Health ImpairmentsBipolar DisorderAnxiety DisorderTreating Physician Rule
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2013

Karabinas v. Colvin

Dimitrios N. Karabinas challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his Disability Insurance Benefits application, arguing the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) committed several legal errors. The court identified flaws in the ALJ's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) assessment, including failure to accommodate Karabinas's moderate difficulties in concentration, persistence, and pace, and an incomplete function-by-function analysis of his work abilities. Furthermore, the court found the ALJ improperly weighed medical opinions, specifically downplaying the detailed report from Karabinas's chiropractor, and based its credibility determination on a circular logic. Concluding that the ALJ's errors led to an unsupported denial of benefits, the District Court reversed the Commissioner's decision. The case was remanded for the sole purpose of calculating and providing benefits to Karabinas for the specified period.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSocial Security ActRFC AssessmentMedical OpinionCredibility AssessmentVocational ExpertCervical Disc ProblemsPain ManagementChiropractic TreatmentWork Limitations
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matejka v. Barnhart

Plaintiff, Ms. Matejka, alleging disability since March 31, 2000, applied for Disability Insurance Benefits, which was denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The plaintiff sought review in District Court, arguing the ALJ's decision lacked sufficient inquiry into past relevant work, a reasoned finding on credibility, a proper residual functional capacity assessment, and a correct determination of the severity of her depression. The District Court found the ALJ's conclusions not supported by substantial evidence due to these deficiencies, particularly regarding the exertional requirements of past work, the evaluation of the plaintiff's credibility, the lack of a function-by-function RFC analysis, and the failure to adequately assess the severity of her depression, especially in light of uncontradicted medical opinions. Consequently, the Court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for a new hearing consistent with its findings.

Disability Insurance BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityCredibility AssessmentMedical EvidencePsychological AssessmentSpinal StenosisChronic Back PainDepressionRemand
References
24
Case No. CV-22-2032
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of John Deliso

This case involves an appeal from decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board regarding a claim filed by John Deliso, a maintenance supervisor, for work-related repetitive stress injuries. The claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and repetitive stress injuries to wrists and shoulders was established. However, the employer alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, providing surveillance videos that contradicted Deliso's reported functional abilities during permanency evaluations by his treating physician, Christopher Kyriakides. An independent medical examination by Sean Lager also found no functional impairment and symptom magnification. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge, affirmed by the Board, found that Deliso made material misrepresentations regarding his functional abilities, thus violating Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding of material misrepresentations and upholding the discretionary disqualification from future wage replacement benefits due to the egregious nature of the deception.

Workers' CompensationFraudMisrepresentationSurveillance EvidenceMedical EvaluationSchedule Loss of UseDisqualificationOccupational DiseaseAppellate ReviewMaterial Fact
References
12
Case No. ADJ7087449
Regular
Nov 02, 2012

ELVIRA VASQUEZ vs. DEL MONTE FOODS, ZURICH INSURANCE

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Elvira Vasquez against Del Monte Foods. The defendant sought reconsideration of a prior Appeals Board decision that found applicant sustained an industrial injury and that the defendant failed to prove intoxication was the proximate cause. The defendant argued the applicant's amphetamine use was established and impaired her function, making it a substantial factor in the injury. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, holding that a positive drug test alone is insufficient to prove intoxication or causation, citing precedent that requires further evidence of impaired function or substantial evidence of causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryLabor Code Section 3600(a)(4)Proximate CauseIntoxicationBurden of ProofAmphetaminesDrug TestImpaired Function
References
1
Case No. ADJ9358356
Regular
Sep 12, 2018

BLADIMIR RAMIREZ vs. J&J APARTMENT RENTALS, NORGARD INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claim for acupuncture services rendered to applicant Bladimir Ramirez. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award, finding the lien claimant failed to demonstrate functional improvement required for more than six acupuncture treatments. While acknowledging some improvement in physical examinations, the WCAB determined this alone did not satisfy the regulatory definition of functional improvement. Ultimately, the WCAB modified the award to allow the lien claimant $\$647.92$ for services rendered between June 17, 2014, and July 24, 2014, based on a submitted bill review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLien ClaimantOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleFunctional ImprovementActivities of Daily LivingWork RestrictionsPrimary Treating PhysicianCompromise and Release
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Lucarelli

A police officer was indicted for official misconduct and hindering prosecution after allegedly warning a suspect's mother about an ongoing narcotics investigation targeting her son. The court dismissed the official misconduct charge, reasoning that warning a suspect's mother was not an official function of a police officer, and thus not an unauthorized exercise of an official function as required by statute. The hindering prosecution charge was also dismissed due to legally insufficient evidence that the suspect had committed a felony, as the purchaser's testimony about buying 'ecstasy' was conclusory and lacked sufficient foundation. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the entire indictment was granted.

Official MisconductHindering ProsecutionPolice OfficerGrand Jury IndictmentLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceControlled Substance IdentificationFelonyDismissal of IndictmentCriminal AssistanceUnauthorized Exercise of Official Functions
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortiz Torres v. Colvin

Luz Leida Ortiz Torres appealed the denial of her Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. The District Court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) improperly discounted the treating physician's opinion regarding Ortiz's physical limitations based on a conservative treatment regimen. Consequently, the court vacated the Commissioner's decision in part and remanded the case for a more comprehensive physical residual functional capacity assessment. However, the court affirmed the ALJ's findings on Ortiz's mental residual functional capacity and credibility, deeming them supported by substantial evidence.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)Disability BenefitsSocial Security Administration (SSA)Residual Functional Capacity (RFC)Degenerative Disc DiseaseDepressionMedical-Vocational Guidelines (Grid)Treating Physician RuleCredibility DeterminationRemand Order
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dennis v. Colvin

Plaintiff Alicia B. Dennis challenged an Administrative Law Judge's denial of her disability benefits application under the Social Security Act. The District Court reviewed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate Plaintiff's coronary artery disease by interpreting diagnostic evidence without supporting medical opinions on functional limitations. This error rendered the ALJ's Residual Functional Capacity finding unsupported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the court granted Plaintiff's motion, denied Defendant's motion, and remanded the case for the ALJ to obtain further medical opinion evidence consistent with the decision.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeRemandMedical EvidenceCoronary Artery DiseaseResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleALJ ErrorJudicial Review
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 420 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