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. SAC 0290200 SAC 0352087 MON 0309956 MON 0326164
Regular
Dec 17, 2007

PATTY OLFATI (PARVIN OLFATI) vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BOARD OF EQUALIZATION and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought to disqualify the workers' compensation judge due to alleged bias and intimidation by the judge and defendants. The appeals board denied the petition, finding no evidence of bias or the appearance of bias. The applicant failed to provide a proper affidavit and did not attend the conference where the alleged intimidation occurred.

Disqualification petitionWCJ biaspsychiatric injuryindustrial injuryex parte communicationaffidavit requirementLabor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10452protective ordersubpoena duces tecum
References
4
Case No. ADJ8467469
Regular
Apr 17, 2013

IRENE YERA vs. J.C. PENNEY, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's Petition for Removal after a WCJ denied their motion to compel a deposition with an employer representative present. The applicant refused to proceed with the deposition citing intimidation by the store manager. The Appeals Board found that the applicant's subjective assertion of intimidation, without specific evidence or a protective order request, was insufficient to exclude the employer's representative. Therefore, the WCJ's denial was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level to allow the deposition to proceed with the store manager present.

Petition for RemovalDecision After RemovalEmployer RepresentativeDepositionProtective OrderIntimidationDue ProcessPrejudiceReport and RecommendationRescinded Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schwartz & Jaffee, Inc. v. Hillman

The plaintiff, a clothing manufacturer, sought an injunction against the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America union and its members for engaging in unlawful picketing, threats, molestation, intimidation, and interference with employment contracts during a strike. The plaintiff had implemented an 'open shop' policy and entered into individual non-union agreements with its employees after severing ties with the defendant union. The court found ample evidence that the defendants were responsible for instigating the strike, unlawful picketing, and various acts of violence and intimidation against the plaintiff's business and employees. Acknowledging the historical conflict between capital and labor, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief and granted the motion.

InjunctionLabor DisputeUnlawful PicketingStrikeOpen Shop PolicyUnion InterferenceEmployment ContractsEmployer-Employee RelationsViolenceTrade Unions
References
6
Case No. CA No. 79-73-CA
Regular Panel Decision

Nash v. State of Tex.

This civil action evaluates the constitutionality of two sections of the Texas mass picketing statute (Article 5154d, § 1, paragraph 1, and § 2) under the First Amendment. Plaintiffs, John Nash and Local 746 of the United Rubber Workers, challenged the statute's enforcement during a 1979 strike at Buddy Schoellkopf, Inc., which led to numerous arrests for 'unlawful picketing'. The court ruled that the case was not moot, applying the 'capable of repetition, yet evades review' exception, citing the statute's chilling effect on future labor disputes. Upon review, the court determined that both the 'numbers-distance provision' and the 'intimidating language section' of the statute are unconstitutionally overbroad. Additionally, the intimidating language section was found to be unconstitutionally vague, leading to the declaration of both sections as unconstitutional.

Labour LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPicketingMass PicketingOverbreadth DoctrineVagueness DoctrineConstitutional LawCivil RightsDeclaratory Judgment
References
103
Case No. ADJ9757218, ADJ10058696
Regular
Aug 21, 2017

MICHAEL GUILLOT vs. ALBERTSONS SUPERVALUE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of an Amended Order Approving Compromise and Release. The applicant alleged the settlement was procured by fraud, claiming he was intimidated and forced to sign without reviewing it. However, the Board found no evidence or testimony under oath was presented to support these allegations. Consequently, the Board recommended the petition be treated as a request to set aside the order, requiring a hearing for the applicant to present evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseFraudDuressUndue InfluenceProcedural IrregularitiesGood CauseRescind OrderStipulation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schatz v. Christel

The plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with their business, employees, customers, or anyone doing business with them. The injunction also aimed to prevent the defendant from threatening, intimidating, coercing, or using force. Furthermore, the plaintiffs sought to stop the defendant from falsely asserting in written material that their shop was non-union or that a strike was ongoing. The court ultimately reversed the initial order. Consequently, the motion filed by the plaintiffs was granted to the extent specified in the decision.

InjunctionBusiness InterferenceLabor DisputeThreatsIntimidationCoercionNon-union ShopStrikeCustomer RelationsReversed Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ7136663
Regular
Mar 08, 2011

TONIA OSBY-WREN vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, SOUTHERN CAL EDISON ROSEMEAD

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant who sought a protective order to exclude an employee, Gil Aguilar, from her deposition due to alleged harassment and intimidation. The administrative law judge denied the request, finding insufficient evidence and noting the permissive nature of the relevant statute. The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as it was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal and issued a protective order barring Aguilar from the deposition, finding adequate evidence of the applicant's fear of him and that Aguilar was neither a party nor an officer.

Protective orderPetition for removalDeposition exclusionGil AguilarDr. Visant SanatharaCCP 2025.420(b)(12)Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judgeReconsiderationFinal order
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 1994

Jaffe v. National League for Nursing

The Supreme Court of New York County modified an order regarding a complaint alleging employee harassment, intimidation, and forced resignation. The court rejected the Workers' Compensation Law as an exclusive remedy for such intentional torts. While it found the allegations insufficient to meet the rigorous standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress, it determined that an alleged "hard slap" constituted a valid cause of action for assault and battery. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the first cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress but affirmed the remainder of the order.

Employee HarassmentIntimidationForced ResignationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressWorkers' Compensation LawAssault and BatteryAt-Will EmploymentMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewNew York Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A.L. Reed Co. v. . Whiteman

This case addresses an injunction granted to the plaintiff against the defendants, which the court deemed overly broad. The judgment was modified to specify four restrictions on the defendants' actions: preventing them from inducing plaintiff's employees to breach contracts, limiting parading near the plaintiff's premises to crowds of no more than two, prohibiting coercion and intimidation against those engaging with the plaintiff's business, and restricting picketing to two individuals without force or undue persuasion. The modified judgment was affirmed, though some justices dissented concerning the restraint on interfering with definite-term contracts, arguing a lack of demonstrated irreparable damage.

Injunction ScopeLabor RelationsEmployee SolicitationContract BreachPicketing RestrictionsJudicial ModificationDissenting OpinionBusiness InterferenceWorkplace Conduct
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zeng Liu v. Donna Karan International, Inc.

The defendant, Donna Karan International, Inc., sought discovery into the immigration status of the plaintiffs. Senior District Judge Whitman Knapp denied this request, distinguishing between back pay for unperformed work and unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The court noted that immigration status is generally undiscoverable in FLSA cases. Furthermore, the judge determined that the potential harm to plaintiffs, including intimidation and inhibition of pursuing their rights, outweighed the need for disclosure, even with a confidentiality agreement. The court allowed the defendant to renew the request if circumstances change.

Discovery DisputeImmigration StatusFair Labor Standards ActUndocumented WorkersPrivacyDiscovery LimitationsJudicial DiscretionPrecedent AnalysisEmployer-Employee DisputeFederal Court
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 63 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