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

United States v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.

Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation ("Fox") and its branch manager, Leila J. Goldstein, were found guilty of criminal contempt for violating a 1951 consent decree from United States v. Loew’s Inc. The decree enjoined Fox from "block booking" films, a practice where the right to exhibit one film is conditioned upon licensing others. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found overwhelming evidence that Goldstein, acting within the scope of her authority, willfully and repeatedly violated this order by coercing exhibitors into licensing less desirable films before more popular ones. The court also found Fox criminally liable for Goldstein's managerial conduct. Sentencing for both defendants was scheduled for December 7, 1988.

Criminal ContemptBlock BookingConsent Decree ViolationMotion Picture IndustrySherman ActAntitrust LawCorporate Criminal LiabilityWillful ViolationManagerial Employee ConductFilm Distribution
References
9
Case No. ADJ3923408
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

Andrea Seyfried vs. Compass Films, Inc., National Surety Company/Fireman's Fund, Power Payroll, Inc., California Insurance Guarantee Association for Legion Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that the applicant sustained an industrial injury while employed by both Power Payroll (general employer) and Compass Films (special employer). Power Payroll was insured by Legion Insurance, whose obligations are now handled by CIGA. Compass Films was insured by Fireman's Fund. The Board rescinded the prior order finding Power Payroll as the sole employer and returned the case for proceedings to determine the respective liabilities of CIGA and Fireman's Fund. CIGA is not liable if Fireman's Fund policy constitutes "other insurance" available to the applicant.

General employerSpecial employerDual employmentPayroll servicesFilm industryInsurance Guarantee AssociationInsurer insolvencySpecial employer controlPayroll companyProduction manager
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yash Raj Films (USA), Inc. v. Akhtar (In Re Akhtar)

Yash Raj Films (USA), Inc. (

Copyright InfringementNondischargeabilityBankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(6)Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentWillful and Malicious InjuryPreliminary InjunctionCivil ContemptStatutory DamagesChapter 7
References
38
Case No. 13 Civ. 1297 (JPO)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2014

Duffey v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.

This case revolves around Todd Duffey, an actor who portrayed a character in the movie *Office Space*, suing Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Running Press. Duffey alleged false endorsement under the Lanham Act and breach of contract, claiming unauthorized use of his image on 'Box of Flair' merchandise. The court, presided over by District Judge J. Paul Oetken, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The decision was based on the interpretation of Duffey's Day Player Agreement, which was found to unambiguously grant 'all rights throughout the universe' to his performance, including its use for commercial purposes like merchandise. Applying Texas contract law, the court concluded that the defendants' use of Duffey's image was permissible, leading to the dismissal of all his claims.

Intellectual PropertyContract DisputeFalse EndorsementLanham ActDay Player AgreementMerchandising RightsActor RightsFilm IndustryTexas Contract LawChoice of Law
References
60
Case No. ADJ8595258
Regular
Jul 21, 2015

DANNY KENZY vs. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE

This case concerns a defendant's Petition for Removal of an order closing discovery. The defendant argued the order, which prohibited the use of subrosa evidence at depositions of the applicant's vocational expert and PQME, denied them due process and irreparably harmed their ability to rebut the applicant's claim of 100% permanent and total disability. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding the defendant acted with due diligence in obtaining and disclosing the subrosa evidence. The Board amended the order to permit the defendant to use the subrosa evidence during these depositions, deeming it crucial for rebuttal.

RemovalPetition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceOrder Closing DiscoveryDue ProcessSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmVocational ExpertPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQME
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2006

Clonus Associates v. Dreamworks, LLC

This copyright infringement case was brought by Robert Fiveson and Clonus Assocs. against DreamWorks, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that DreamWorks' 2005 film, 'The Island,' infringed the copyright of Fiveson's 1979 movie, 'Parts: The Clonus Horror.' Both films depict secret facilities where clones are raised for organ harvesting. Following discovery, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied both motions, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding access to the copyrighted work, the degree of similarity between the films, and the defense of independent creation. The court also denied the defendants' motion to preclude damages, as profit calculations were highly contested.

Copyright InfringementSummary JudgmentMotion DeniedFilm IndustryMovie CopyrightSubstantial SimilarityActual CopyingIndependent CreationAccess to WorkProbative Similarity
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Chmiel

The case involves an appeal by Magno Sound, Inc., a sound and video company, from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had assessed Magno Sound for additional unemployment insurance contributions, determining that a film editor claimant, hired for a film production, was a statutory employee under Labor Law § 511 (1) (b) (1-a). Magno Sound contended the claimant was an independent contractor and that the statute was misconstrued. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its rational interpretation of the Labor Law, which extends unemployment insurance benefits to those in the performing arts. The court found that claimant's services for a film production fit the criteria for statutory employment, upholding the assessment against Magno Sound.

Unemployment InsuranceStatutory EmployeeIndependent ContractorPerforming ArtsFilm ProductionLabor LawStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewEmployer ContributionsFilm Editor
References
3
Case No. ADJ3995122 (OAK 0343980)
Regular
Aug 13, 2013

ROSA GOMEZ vs. NOB HILL FOODS, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal to address the exclusion of sub rosa films and investigator testimony. The trial judge had excluded this evidence because it was disclosed late and not shown to treating doctors. However, the Board found that the defendant properly disclosed the evidence and investigators at the mandatory settlement conference per Labor Code § 5502(d)(3). The admissibility of the sub rosa films and investigator testimony is now deferred to the trial judge.

Sub rosa filmsremovalmandatory settlement conferencedisclosureevidence exclusioninvestigative reportsLabor Code section 5502petition for removalpetition for reconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ4707980 (VNO 0543260) ADJ3907003 (VNO 0543258) ADJ7500629
Regular
Apr 05, 2012

RAMON SALAZAR vs. CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE, ACE USA Administered By CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC.

The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding the WCJ's order for a sanctions hearing and the appearance of the defendant's claims examiner. While acknowledging the duty to disclose evidence before a trial, the Board found no authority requiring pre-expedited hearing disclosure of sub rosa films, thus negating grounds for sanctions. The Board also determined an affidavit from the claims examiner would suffice, making her live appearance unnecessary. The order for the sub rosa films to be sent to the Agreed Medical Examiner was affirmed.

sub rosa filmsexpedited hearingsanctionsPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical Examinertemporary disability indemnitymedical treatmentclaims examineraffidavitLabor Code section 5813
References
4
Case No. 2008 NY Slip Op 33173(11)
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2008

Belding v. Verizon New York, Inc.

An installer, identified as the plaintiff, sustained injuries after falling from an A-frame ladder while reinstalling bomb blast film in a building owned by Verizon New York, Inc. The plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) was granted, while the defendants' cross-motion for dismissal was denied. The central legal dispute revolved around whether the reinstallation of bomb blast film constituted 'altering' a structure under the statute. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the work was part of a significant capital improvement and thus a protected activity. The dissent argued the work was merely cosmetic and did not meet the 'altering' criteria.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Ladder FallSummary JudgmentLiabilityAltering a BuildingCapital ImprovementBomb Blast FilmSubcontractor LiabilityProximate CauseStatutory Interpretation
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 61 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