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. ADJ1051150 (OAK 0324388) ADJ2365304 (OAK 0343863)
Regular
Aug 18, 2010

GUSTAVIA PERKINS vs. ALBERTSONS, JC PENNEY, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, SAVEMART SUPERMARKETS, PEGASUS RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Albertsons' petition for reconsideration as the order compelling arbitration was not a final decision. The Board granted Albertsons' alternative petition for removal to correct an inadvertent omission. Specifically, the Order compelling arbitration, which was initially issued only in case ADJ1051150, was amended to include case ADJ2365304 as well.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code Section 5271Labor Code Section 5900Interlocutory OrderPetition for ContributionMandatory ArbitrationCompromise and ReleaseCumulative Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ6548746
Regular
Jun 30, 2015

TYRONE TUCKER vs. YOSEMITE WATER, U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTEE COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The Board granted reconsideration to address the applicant's claims regarding hearing loss and an overlooked 15% increase in permanent disability payments. While the Board affirmed the denial of the hearing loss claim due to insufficient evidence, it amended the award to include the 15% increase under Labor Code section 4658(d)(2), finding its omission by the trial judge to be inadvertent.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Awardnew and further injurypermanent disabilitytemporary disabilityLabor Code section 3202hearing losstinnitusneurological injury
References
4
Case No. ADJ6906058
Regular
Dec 16, 2013

LUIS TIJERINO vs. KTTV FOX 11 NEWS, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a prior award. While affirming the finding of 73% permanent disability and industrial injury to multiple body parts, the Board corrected clerical errors. Specifically, the lower back was added to the list of injured body parts, and the applicant was explicitly granted further medical treatment for all orthopedic injuries. The Board clarified that these amendments corrected inadvertent omissions, not substantive judicial errors.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerVocational ExpertsClerical ErrorCompensable ConsequenceOrthopedic InjuriesChronic Pain Syndrome
References
3
Case No. ADJ7703859
Regular
Aug 01, 2016

ELAINE CONNOR vs. SIERRA COUNCIL ON ALCOHOL AND DRUG DEPENDENCE, CARE WEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's order that found no Labor Code section 132a discrimination. The applicant's petition primarily focused on a potential attorney's fee award for a deposition under Labor Code section 5710, which the original order did not address. The WCJ's report recommended granting reconsideration to award the requested attorney's fees, acknowledging the omission was inadvertent. The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition, amending the order to include the $1,557.50 attorney's fee award, and otherwise affirmed the original findings. The Board also dismissed the defendant's improper supplemental petition and denied their petition for sanctions against applicant's counsel.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code 132aLabor Code 5710WCJAttorney's FeesDeposition FeesPetition for SanctionsWCAB Rule 10848Supplemental Filing
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Markowitz v. Bloomberg

Petitioners, political representatives of various districts and boroughs in the City of New York, sought to vacate a determination by the New York City Fire Department and other city agencies to close firehouses and dissolve fire companies due to fiscal constraints. They alleged inadequate notice, an arbitrary and capricious decision, and violations of the New York State and City Environmental Quality Review Acts (SEQRA/CEQR). The court found the respondents' decision was not arbitrary or capricious and did not violate environmental laws, categorizing the closures as 'Type II' actions under SEQRA, thus exempt from extensive environmental review. However, the court did identify a failure by respondents to provide proper written notice to specific community entities concerning the closing of Engine Company 261, as mandated by the New York City Charter 487(a). Despite this procedural flaw, the court denied injunctive relief to restore the unit, concluding that the omission was inadvertent and did not prejudice the public's opportunity for protest and debate.

Fiscal CrisisFire DepartmentFirehouse ClosuresPublic SafetyEnvironmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)New York City CharterNotice RequirementsInjunctive ReliefAdministrative LawJudicial Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Foley v. Transocean Ltd.

This case is a securities class action brought by Lead Plaintiff Danica Pension A/S against Transocean Ltd. and its current and former Chief Executive Officers. The lawsuit stems from the tragic Deepwater Horizon accident, alleging that Transocean made material misrepresentations and omissions in investor conference calls regarding its safety practices and equipment functionality. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The court granted the defendants' motion, concluding that the Lead Plaintiff failed to adequately plead both a material misrepresentation or omission and the requisite scienter.

Securities Class ActionDeepwater Horizon AccidentOil and Gas IndustryCorporate MisconductInvestor ProtectionMotion to DismissFederal Securities LawRule 10b-5PSLRACorporate Disclosure
References
28
Case No. ADJ10020893
Regular
Aug 21, 2017

TZITZIRI BOLANOS ZACARIAS vs. MARZ FARMS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Zenith Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration of a $250 sanction order. The sanction was imposed because Zenith and its attorneys failed to appear at a status conference due to an alleged calendaring error. Zenith argued this was an inadvertent mistake, not bad faith, and requested relief under WCAB Rule 10561. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report that found no reasonable excuse for the failure to appear. One commissioner dissented, believing the sanctions were unjust given the isolated, inadvertent nature of the calendaring error and Zenith's prompt resolution of the underlying issue.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsStatus ConferenceNotice of Intention to SanctionReasonable ExcuseCalendaring ErrorWCAB Rule 10561Labor Code section 5813Bad Faith
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Watkins Glen Central School District v. National Union Fire Ins.

The Watkins Glen Central School District sought defense and indemnification from National Union Fire Ins. Co. under an errors and omissions policy after being sued for negligent hiring and supervision of a teacher involved in sexual misconduct. National Union disclaimed coverage, citing exclusions for intentional acts, assault and battery, and bodily injury. Both the Supreme Court and this appellate court affirmed that National Union is obligated to provide coverage. The courts reasoned that applying intentional act exclusions to a claim of negligent supervision would nullify the purpose of an errors and omissions policy, which is designed to cover professional negligence.

Errors and Omissions PolicyNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSexual MisconductInsurance Coverage DisclaimerIntentional Act ExclusionProfessional Malpractice InsuranceSchool District LiabilityIn Loco ParentisIndemnification
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dumas v. Wyeth

Plaintiff Richard Dumas brought an action against his former employer, Wyeth, for fraudulent concealment, alleging that Wyeth failed to disclose significant changes in his benefits and 'at will' employment status upon his promotion to a management position. Dumas claimed this omission led to his termination after a serious car accident, as his disability leave benefits were significantly shorter than those afforded to union members. Wyeth filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted Wyeth's motion, concluding that Dumas could not reasonably claim reliance on the alleged omissions given his opportunities to inquire, nor was there sufficient evidence to establish Wyeth's intent to defraud.

Fraudulent ConcealmentSummary JudgmentEmployment LawAt-Will EmploymentEmployee BenefitsSeniority RightsDisability LeaveCollective Bargaining AgreementRelianceScienter
References
13
Case No. 07 Civ. 10329(RJS)
Regular Panel Decision

City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Wyeth

Plaintiffs, led by Pipefitters Union Local 537 Pension Fund, initiated a class action against Wyeth and several individuals, alleging securities fraud. They claim Wyeth made materially false misstatements and omissions regarding the safety of its drug, Pristiq, causing artificial inflation of its stock price. This decision addresses the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs satisfied the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This includes demonstrating numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and predominance of common legal and factual questions, supported by the fraud-on-the-market presumption and the Affiliated Ute presumption of reliance for omissions.

Securities FraudClass Action LawsuitClass CertificationRule 23Fraud on the MarketMaterial MisrepresentationOmissionsReliance PresumptionPredominance RequirementTypicality
References
59
Showing 1-10 of 214 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