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. ADJ9781533
Regular
Aug 02, 2017

Rodolfo Boate vs. Truegreen Landcare, Zurich American Insurance Company

This case involves Rodolfo Boate's workers' compensation claim against Truegreen Landcare and Zurich American Insurance Company for injuries sustained during an altercation with a coworker. The defendant argued the claim was barred because Boate was the initial aggressor, citing his physical advance towards the coworker. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration of the Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) finding that Boate's actions were in reasonable fear of bodily harm due to the coworker's prior severe threats and aggressive behavior. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's credibility determinations, finding no substantial evidence to reject them. Therefore, Boate's injury was deemed industrial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRODOLFO BOATETRUGREEN LANDCAREZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANYADJ9781533Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedWCJCredibility determinationsGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Pegas

The claimant resigned from their machinist job, citing fear due to a confrontation with a co-worker. However, the Board found this resignation to be for personal and noncompelling reasons, thus disqualifying them from unemployment insurance benefits. An investigation by the employer's personnel director concluded that the co-worker did not intend harm. While fear for safety can justify leaving employment, the record lacked sufficient evidence to support the claimant's belief of immediate danger. Therefore, the Board's decision, affirming that the claimant voluntarily left employment without good cause, was supported by substantial evidence.

Voluntary ResignationUnemployment BenefitsWorkplace DisputeFear for SafetyGood Cause for Leaving EmploymentSubstantial EvidenceBoard Decision ReviewPersonal SafetyCo-worker ConfrontationQuitting Job
References
4
Case No. 2015-1796 Q CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2017

People v. Rivas (Mayra)

This case concerns an appeal by Mayra Rivas from her convictions for stalking in the fourth degree and harassment in the first degree. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reviewed the facial sufficiency of the superseding accusatory instrument and the weight of the trial evidence. The court reversed and dismissed the conviction for stalking under Penal Law § 120.45 (3), finding the accusatory instrument facially insufficient as it lacked objective facts to establish a reasonable fear of employment loss. However, the convictions for stalking under Penal Law § 120.45 (1) and harassment in the first degree were affirmed, as the court determined that the extensive allegations supported a finding of a course of conduct intended to cause reasonable fear for personal safety, beyond mere protected speech.

StalkingHarassmentCriminal LawAppellate ReviewFacial InsufficiencySufficiency of EvidencePenal LawCriminal Procedure LawFirst AmendmentFree Speech
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castro v. New York Life Insurance

Zoila Castro, a cleaning worker, sustained a hypodermic needle puncture wound to her right thumb while working at New York Life Insurance Co.'s offices on June 22, 1989. She subsequently developed a 'generalized anxiety disorder' and 'AIDS phobia' due to the incident, leading her and her husband, Osvaldo Castro, to file a personal injury action alleging negligence by New York Life for improper disposal of hazardous medical waste. New York Life moved to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment, arguing that fear of AIDS without reasonable certainty is not compensable and that there was no medical evidence to support the claim. The court denied both of New York Life's motions, finding that Castro's claim for mental anguish and 'AIDS Phobia' was directly tied to the incident. It concluded that a reasonable person exposed to a discarded hypodermic needle could develop such a fear, thus guaranteeing the genuineness of her claim and necessitating a trial.

Personal InjuryNegligenceHypodermic Needle InjuryAIDS PhobiaEmotional DistressSummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissHazardous Waste DisposalCausation of InjuryGeneralized Anxiety Disorder
References
9
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 30531(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2007

Schirmer v. Athena-Liberty Lofts, LP

This case is an appeal from an Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a personal injury action. The plaintiff, a worker at a construction site, sustained injuries, leading to the site owner, Lofts, settling the claim after being found liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). Lofts then pursued indemnity claims against lighting contractor HP and the plaintiff's employer, Burgess. The Appellate Court modified the lower court's decision, vacating the finding that Lofts' settlement amount was reasonable due to Lofts' failure to properly demonstrate reasonableness and its mischaracterization of waiver arguments by HP and Burgess. The Court also affirmed the denial of HP's motion for summary judgment, citing unresolved factual issues concerning inadequate lighting as a cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnity ClaimLabor Law § 240(1)Appellate DivisionThird-Party ActionSettlement ReasonablenessCross ClaimsInadequate Lighting
References
4
Case No. ADJ9116799
Regular
Nov 01, 2016

JOHN FLOYD vs. CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY (BHHC) for FLOYD, SKEREN & KELLY, LLP et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal in this case. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, and the Board only grants it when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denial, and reconsideration would be inadequate. In this instance, the Board found no persuasive evidence of such prejudice or harm, adopting the WCJ's reasoning for denial. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judgeextraordinary remedyCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY
References
2
Case No. ADJ9099555
Regular
Jul 05, 2017

RONALD CARETTI vs. PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's (Pepsi Bottling Group) Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will occur without it. The Board found no such prejudice or harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy later. Therefore, the petition was denied, adopting the reasoning of the administrative law judge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationextraordinary remedyCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Cal. Code Regs.
References
2
Case No. ADJ7659437
Regular
Oct 31, 2016

ALFREDO PEREZ vs. MAINSTAY BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS' SECURITY FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Alfredo Perez's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy that requires a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if not granted. The Board found that Perez failed to demonstrate such harm or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the petition was denied, adopting the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmadequate remedyCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Cal. Code Regs.tit. 8
References
2
Case No. ADJ10110441
Regular
May 03, 2017

ERMINIA AMY MASINI PEREZ vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN JOSE, AND CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm is shown, and reconsideration is deemed an inadequate remedy. The Board found that the defendant failed to demonstrate such prejudice or harm, adopting the administrative law judge's reasoning. The Board also accepted the defendant's supplemental pleading.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportSupplemental PleadingExtraordinary RemedyAdministrative Law JudgeADJ10110441
References
2
Case No. ADJ9868813, ADJ10013839
Regular
Feb 02, 2018

CECILIA ECHEVERRIA DIAZ vs. HOWARD'S SHOPWRITE PHARMACY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Cecilia Echeverria Diaz's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB found that the applicant did not demonstrate such prejudice or harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the petition was denied, adopting the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportExtraordinary RemedyCortezKleemannAdjudication
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 6,069 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