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. ADJ10301846 ADJ8235335
Regular
Feb 07, 2019

Jack Kessler vs. E. \u0026 J. Gallo Winery

Defendant E. & J. Gallo Winery sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that found applicant Jack Kessler sustained a compensable psychiatric injury. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's finding that industrial factors were the predominant cause of the applicant's psyche injury. The defendant argued the applicant failed to meet the "predominant cause" standard for psychiatric injuries and that combining two separate injuries was impermissible. The Board clarified that the issue of injury causation is distinct from the apportionment of permanent disability, and the applicant's medical evidence met the predominant cause standard.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationNew and Further DisabilityPsyche InjuryPredominant CauseLabor Code section 3208.2Labor Code section 3208.3Cumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryApportionment
References
5
Case No. ADJ10393124
Regular
Oct 02, 2019

MINDY SPITZ vs. REALOGY HOLDINGS CORPORATION, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA

The applicant, Mindy Spitz, sought workers' compensation for a psychiatric injury, claiming it resulted from a violent act at work. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the prior decision that she did not prove her psychiatric condition was predominantly caused by employment events. The WCAB found that the incidents described by the applicant did not constitute a "violent act" as legally defined, thus requiring the predominant cause standard for compensation. Consequently, the WCAB concluded that the applicant's claim failed under the applicable legal standard and the evidence presented.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeQualified Medical EvaluatorPredominant CauseSubstantial CauseViolent ActPsychiatric InjuryAOE/COE
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1990

Giles v. State Division of Human Rights

Respondent Universal Instruments Corporation laid off approximately 1,000 employees due to a drastic reduction in customer orders. Four female employees (petitioners) who were laid off in August 1985 filed discrimination complaints with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging sex and/or age discrimination. The Division conducted investigations and found no probable cause. Petitioners then sought judicial review, and the Supreme Court annulled the Division's determinations, remitting the matters for further proceedings. This appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's judgments, finding that the appropriate standard of review for the Division's no probable cause determinations was whether they were arbitrary and capricious or lacked a rational basis. Applying this standard, the court concluded that the Division rationally found an insufficient factual basis for unlawful discrimination, as the layoffs were due to economic necessity and the need to retain qualified workers, and the investigative process was fair. Therefore, the Division's no probable cause determinations were improperly annulled.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationAge DiscriminationLayoffsEconomic ReasonsProbable CauseJudicial ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardRational Basis ReviewAdministrative Determinations
References
4
Case No. ADJ7382041
Regular
May 11, 2012

Donna Larson vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Legally Uninsured, SCIF STATE EMPLOYEES ROHNERT PARK, Adjusting Agency

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) findings on applicant Donna Larson's psychiatric injury. The ALJ found Larson sustained cumulative trauma injury to her circulatory system and psyche, with ongoing temporary disability. Defendant argued the psychiatric injury finding was unsubstantiated, particularly regarding whether actual employment events were the predominant cause and if lawful personnel actions were a substantial cause. The Board found the ALJ's analysis under Labor Code section 3208.3 and the *Rolda* case lacked sufficient clarity regarding the predominant cause of the psychiatric injury and the impact of lawful personnel actions, including the applicant's termination. Therefore, the case was remanded to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision to clarify these critical legal standards.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardCumulative TraumaHypertensionPsycheTemporary DisabilityPredominantly CausedActual Events of EmploymentGood Faith Personnel Actions
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell v. Kandler

This case involves an appeal concerning a plaintiff's fall while washing exterior windows of a commercial building, leading to a Labor Law § 202 cause of action. An earlier order had granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, finding multiple triable issues of fact. These issues include whether the building owner mandated window cleaning, tacitly approved the plaintiff's work, acknowledged the subtenancy, provided safe interior window washing options, and if the building's anchor hooks met Industrial Code standards. The reversal means the plaintiff's cause of action can proceed.

Window Washing AccidentSummary Judgment ReversalLabor Law ComplianceBuilding Owner LiabilityIndustrial Code ViolationsTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury ClaimSafety RegulationsPremises Liability
References
1
Case No. 07 Cv. 2014(SWK)
Regular Panel Decision

Standard Investment Chartered, Inc. v. National Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc.

The court addresses a motion for a protective order filed by defendants NASD and NYSE, seeking to prevent plaintiff Standard Investment Chartered, Inc. from disclosing documents obtained during expedited discovery. The opinion thoroughly analyzes the requirements for establishing 'good cause' under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), considering common law and First Amendment presumptions of public access. It distinguishes between judicial and non-judicial documents based on their role in the litigation, specifically examining documents related to Rule 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and reconsideration motions. Finding the defendants' current justifications for confidentiality lacking in specificity, the court requests further, more detailed submissions to demonstrate good cause. Additionally, the court denies the plaintiff's request for a mandatory disclosure of documents to the SEC.

Protective OrderExpedited DiscoveryDocument DisclosureGood Cause StandardPublic AccessCommon Law PresumptionFirst Amendment PresumptionFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
References
43
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07220
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2025

Cerda v. Cydonia W71, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed a personal injury case involving Petronilo Pena Cerda, who was injured due to an unsecured plank on a scaffold. The Supreme Court had granted Cerda partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Cydonia W71, LLC and CCNY Construction Inc., and denied various summary judgment motions by the defendants and third-party defendants regarding liability and contractual indemnification. The appellate court modified the order, conditionally granting Cydonia and CCNY summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against Standard Waterproofing Corp., while otherwise affirming the lower court's decision. The court found that Cerda established his prima facie burden, noting that the bicycle plank required securing, and dismissed arguments regarding plaintiff's credibility or sole proximate cause. Issues of fact concerning Standard's negligence prevented outright summary judgment on its indemnification claim against Xuntos Construction Corp.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Safe Place to WorkElevation-Related HazardScaffolding AccidentContractual IndemnificationVicarious LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewNegligenceProximate Cause
References
8
Case No. ADJ10275361
Regular
Jan 27, 2020

RUSSELL MCFADDEN (deceased); RENEE MCFADDEN, JAZMINE MCFADDEN, and RUSSELL MCFADDEN, II vs. KEOLIS TRANSIT AMERICA; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a judge's decision denying a death benefit claim for Russell McFadden, who died by suicide. The applicant contended his death resulted from an industrial psychiatric injury due to occupational stress. Medical evidence indicated that industrial factors were only a 35% cause of the decedent's psychiatric disorder, with significant pre-existing conditions and drug use being the predominant causes. Furthermore, the Board found no evidence that the suicide was an irresistible impulse, distinguishing it from cases where an industrial injury directly causes a mental condition that prevents resistance to suicide. Therefore, the claim was denied based on the psychiatric injury not being predominantly industrially caused and the suicide not meeting the criteria for compensability.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRenee McFaddenKeolis Transit AmericaLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanyADJ10275361Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationIndustrial Psychiatric InjuryOccupational Stress and StrainCompensable Death ClaimLabor Code Section 3600(a)(6)
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. ADJ10384186 MF ADJ10404193
Regular
Mar 25, 2019

SCOTT MITCHELL vs. DENIHANA, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns a claim for psychiatric injury where the applicant, Scott Mitchell, alleged actual employment events were the predominant cause. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings, giving great weight to credibility determinations and finding no substantial evidence to reject them. Crucially, the Board concluded the injury was not substantially caused by lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions, as required by Labor Code section 3208.3. The Board relied on the agreed medical examiner's opinion that employment stress predominantly caused the aggravation of the applicant's pre-existing condition.

Labor Code 3208.3predominant causepsychiatric injurygood faith personnel actionsubstantial causecredibility determinationsaggravation of pre-existing conditionagreed medical examinercumulative traumaanxiety disorder not otherwise specified
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 5,372 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