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

Gross v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.

Plaintiffs Ellen M. Sullivan and Mark Gross filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., alleging a vertical resale price maintenance scheme that violated antitrust laws and New York’s Consumer Protection Act. They claimed to have suffered economic injury due to inflated shoe prices. Defendant New Balance moved to dismiss the complaint. District Judge Sweet granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not demonstrate direct injury from purchasing from conspiring retailers. The court also dismissed the pendent state law claims without prejudice, granting plaintiffs leave to refile the complaint within 30 days, provided they limit the class to those who purchased from conspiring retailers.

AntitrustClass Action LawsuitResale Price MaintenanceSherman Act Section 1Clayton Act Section 4Consumer StandingMotion to DismissEconomic InjuryPrice Fixing SchemeIndirect Purchaser Standing
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re J.P. Morgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation

Plaintiffs alleged that the JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan implemented by JPMorgan Chase violated ERISA by being age discriminatory and by failing to provide adequate notice of reduced benefit accruals after converting to a cash balance plan. Defendants moved to dismiss all remaining counts. The court denied the motion to dismiss for the age discrimination claim (Count I) and the notice claims (Counts IV-VI), interpreting ERISA's "rate of benefit accrual" to refer to the employee's retirement benefit, which is detrimentally affected for older workers in cash balance plans. The court found that the plan conversion could lead to a significant reduction in benefit accrual, requiring notice. Counts II and III, related to back-loading and forfeiture claims, were dismissed as they had been withdrawn by the plaintiffs.

ERISAAge DiscriminationCash Balance PlansDefined Benefit PlansDefined Contribution PlansBenefit AccrualStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissNotice RequirementsSummary Plan Description
References
23
Case No. ADJ353130 (VNO 0378284)
Regular
Jun 04, 2015

JAMES KIRKLAND vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

This case involves a lien claim by Monrovia Memorial Hospital (MMH) for $303,711.89 in spinal surgery services provided to an injured deputy sheriff. The original judge disallowed the outstanding balance, deeming it unreasonable. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that MMH, as a long-term acute care hospital, is exempt from fee schedules and paid on a reasonable cost basis. Based on the unrefuted testimony of MMH's bill review expert, the Board determined a reasonable reimbursement of $156,938.00 and ordered the defendant to pay the remaining balance of $80,376.08.

Lien claimReconsiderationFindings and OrderBill reviewReasonable cost basisLong term acute care hospitalInpatient fee scheduleStipulation with Request for AwardMedical treatmentSpinal surgery
References
2
Case No. ADJ8751227
Regular
Nov 16, 2015

GLORIA ACOSTA vs. BALANCE STAFFING SERVICES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, ULLICO CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Balance Staffing Services. The petitioner voluntarily withdrew their petition. The WCAB noted that even if not withdrawn, the petition would have been dismissed as untimely and lacking in substance. Furthermore, the WCAB would have denied the petition on its merits based on the Workers' Compensation Judge's report.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissedUntimelySkeletalWCJ's ReportBalance Staffing ServicesCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationPatriot Risk ServicesULLICO Casualty Company
References
0
Case No. ADJ7217859, ADJ7544106
Regular
Oct 21, 2014

YOLANDA MARTINEZ vs. MASS PRECISION, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, SCI @ BALANCE STAFFING SERVICE, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves applicant Yolanda Martinez claiming industrial injuries (lumbar spine, right shoulder, psyche) from her employment at Mass Precision. Defendant Zurich North America, insurer for SCI @ Balance Staffing Service, contested liability for the psyche injury, arguing applicant's employment by SCI was less than the six-month statutory minimum. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding of joint and several liability, holding that prior employment at the same worksite with dual employers counts towards the six-month requirement for psyche injury claims. This decision was based on the principle that the six-month rule aims to prevent claims from routine stress in new employment, a purpose not served when an employee has a longer-term relationship with the worksite.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSpecific InjuryCumulative Trauma InjuryApportionmentPsychiatric InjuryLabor Code Section 3208.3(d)Six Month Employment RequirementDual EmploymentGeneral EmployerSpecial Employer
References
3
Case No. ANA 0384398ANA 0385360
Regular
Dec 27, 2007

CONSUELO CAMPOS vs. DIVERSIFIED MAILING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's untimely petition for reconsideration regarding a stipulated order to pay a lien claimant. However, the WCAB granted reconsideration on its own motion to address the defendant's claim of mutual mistake concerning the lien's outstanding balance. The matter is now returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine if a mutual mistake occurred in the settlement of the lien claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulated OrderLien ClaimantMutual MistakeCal Pharmacy ManagementLabor Code Section 5900(b)DismissalReinstatementRescinded
References
0
Case No. ADJ9972070; ADJ7005764
Regular
Feb 13, 2023

RAMIRO GAMBOA MORENO vs. AMERICAN SUNROOF CORP., OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

A lien claimant, Beatriz Campos Interpreting, petitioned for reconsideration after the WCJ disallowed their lien and found no compensable injury. The parties subsequently entered into a stipulation to settle the $7,665 outstanding balance for $1,500. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the original decision and approved the settlement stipulation. The WCAB commended the parties for resolving the matter through good faith negotiations.

WCABLien ClaimantReconsiderationJoint Findings of Fact and OrdersReasonable and Actually Provided ServicesInterpreter ServicesStipulationSettlement ConferenceRescindedApproved
References
0
Case No. ADJ2742024 (SAC 0321214) ADJ3458925 (SAC 0321215)
Regular
Feb 01, 2013

Raymond Gastinell vs. Empire Pacific Windows Corporation, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

This case concerns a lien claimant's dismissal from a workers' compensation matter. The lien claimant failed to appear at a lien conference, leading to the dismissal of their claim based on defendant's representation that the lien was resolved. The lien claimant objected, stating they had not received a response to settlement attempts and had an outstanding balance. The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the dismissal, and returned the matter for further proceedings to address the conflicting representations and the claimant's failure to appear.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEmpire Pacific Windows CorporationLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanyCompromise and Releaselien claimantTrinity Health and Wellness Centerlien triallien conferenceMinutes of HearingPetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ353130 (VNO 0378284)
Regular
Oct 23, 2015

JAMES KIRKLAND vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

This case concerns the County of Los Angeles's petition for reconsideration of a prior order that awarded outstanding balance on a lien claim to Monrovia Memorial Hospital (MMH). The Appeals Board denied the County's petition, affirming its prior decision. The Board clarified that the statutory time limit for acting on the petition was tolled due to the file not being brought to their attention. The Board also confirmed that its prior decision relied solely on admitted evidence and unrebutted expert testimony, not excluded documents.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code § 5909Due ProcessTollingBill Review ExpertAdmitted Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stena Line (U.K.) Ltd. v. Sea Containers Ltd.

This action involves a dispute between Stena Line (U.K.) Limited (Stena) and Sea Containers Ltd. along with its subsidiary Ferry and Port Holdings Limited (Holdings) concerning a post-closing adjustment to the purchase price of a ferry business. Stena seeks to compel arbitration over a balance sheet dated March 31, 1990, which is crucial for calculating the adjustment. Holdings does not oppose arbitration but seeks to limit its scope, arguing that Stena waived its right to challenge an earlier balance sheet from December 31, 1989. The court grants Stena's petition to compel arbitration regarding the March 31 balance sheet, allowing the arbitrator to examine the procedures of the December balance sheet but restricting any alteration of its findings without the parties' consent. The arbitrator is tasked with determining whether the March balance sheet aligns with the agreement, considering UK GAAP standards, consistency, and a true and fair view of the business.

ArbitrationStock Purchase AgreementBalance Sheet DisputePost-Closing AdjustmentUK GAAPContract InterpretationWaiverScope of ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActBusiness Sale
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 375 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