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. ADJ246218 (ANA 0286638)
Regular
Jun 27, 2012

PAUL LIGAMMARI vs. LOS ANGELES COLLEGE OF CHIROPRACTIC, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The applicant's petition, treated as a Petition for Disqualification, was denied as untimely or without merit. The Appeals Board is initiating removal of the matter to consider sanctions against the applicant for using insulting and disrespectful language that impugns the integrity of the WCAB and its judges. The applicant's prior admonishment for similar conduct underscores the Board's intent to enforce decorum.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationPetition for RemovalJudge LembergSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Appeals Board Rule 10561Bad FaithFrivolous TacticsPrejudicial Language
References
15
Case No. ADJ7280301
Regular
Feb 18, 2014

CONNIE DER TOROSSIAN vs. FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF ORANGE COUNTY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant's attorney, Dennis Hershewe, sought reconsideration of a WCJ's findings denying industrial injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, but is also issuing a notice of intention to sanction Hershewe for $1,500. This is due to his petition containing language deemed insulting, disrespectful, and impugning the WCJ's integrity. The Board found these statements constituted bad faith litigation conduct under Labor Code section 5813.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationBad Faith Litigation ConductLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561SanctionsDennis HersheweIndustrial InjuryPsycheInternal Systems
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 1982

In re the Claim of Caryl

The claimant was terminated for misconduct following a company awards dinner. During the event, he admittedly consumed a significant amount of alcohol, engaged in disruptive behavior including throwing objects, harassing waitresses, and making obscene gestures and insulting comments to speakers. He also attempted to assault a superior and threatened another, leading to his arrest. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially granted benefits, deeming the misconduct not 'in connection with' his employment. However, the court reversed this, ruling that the employer-sponsored event was indeed connected to employment, and employees must uphold behavioral standards even off-duty, thus disqualifying the claimant from benefits.

misconductunemployment insuranceemployee terminationcompany eventoff-duty conductintoxicationworkplace behaviorappeal boardemployer responsibilityemployee obligations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Broad Elm Auto Centers, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

The determination that petitioner engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in the conditions of complainant’s employment is supported by substantial evidence. The hearing testimony established that a store manager frequently made derogatory racial comments about the complainant, including referring to him as his 'little nigger slave,' in the presence of customers and co-workers. A compensatory award of $5,000 for mental anguish was found to be supported by the evidence and not excessive. The court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the Administrative Law Judge and Commissioner lacked authority to determine discriminatory practice based on racial slurs, even though the original complaint focused on unlawful termination due to racial discrimination. The Human Rights Law's predominant purpose is to eliminate discrimination in basic opportunities, and it considers racial insults and harassment in employment as unlawful discriminatory practice.

Racial discriminationUnlawful discriminatory practiceEmployment conditionsRacial slursHarassmentMental anguish awardHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAppellate decisionSubstantial evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Flavin

The plaintiff, a union member who worked during a strike, sued the defendant, president of Local 1170, Communications Workers of America, for libel. The suit stemmed from a flyer circulated by the defendant that characterized the plaintiff as a "scab" and included a definition attributed to Jack London. Special Term granted partial summary judgment to the defendant, ruling the term "scab" was not libelous as a matter of law. The appellate court affirmed, citing federal pre-emption of state libel actions in labor disputes, as established in Linn v Plant Guard Workers and Letter Carriers v Austin. The court held that the use of "scab" and its definition, while insulting, is protected under federal labor law as figurative speech common in such disputes. The court also noted a qualified privilege for communications among union members. However, the issue of other potentially defamatory statements being made with actual malice was remanded for a triable issue of fact.

LibelDefamationLabor DisputeUnion ActivitiesFederal PreemptionSummary JudgmentFreedom of SpeechNLRA Section 7Scab EpithetQualified Privilege
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01567
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2019

Ferdinand v. Salino

The plaintiffs, Susan and David Ferdinand, initiated an action against their neighbors, Gary and Karen Salino, alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, and private nuisance, also seeking a permanent injunction. The dispute arose after the Ferdinands began renovating their property, and the Salinos allegedly posted misleading signs, made disingenuous complaints, harassed invitees, and prevented utility access. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from various acts, including placing signs on the plaintiffs' property, harassment, blocking the driveway, insulting invitees, and videotaping. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court affirmed the injunction against blocking the driveway and harassing invitees but found parts of it overly broad, specifically denying the injunction against placing signs on the plaintiffs' property (due to lack of evidence), videotaping, and general actions to chill economic value.

DefamationPreliminary InjunctionPrivate NuisanceProperty DisputeHarassmentFirst Amendment RightsOverly Broad OrderAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureReal Property Law
References
8
Showing 1-6 of 6 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