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. ADJ1951702 (VNO 0439183) ADJ2261665 (VNO 0439166)
Regular
Sep 13, 2013

DAVID OROZCO vs. REINFORCING POST TENSION, ZURICH

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by David Orozco. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the accompanying Report and Recommendation. Ultimately, the Board found the petition to be moot. Consequently, the Board has issued an order dismissing the Petition for Reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationmootdismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJadministrative law judgeReinforcing Post TensionZurichADJ1951702ADJ2261665
References
0
Case No. ADJ4547816 (OAK 0342520)
Regular
Aug 05, 2010

FIDEL LOPEZ vs. REINFORCING POST-TENSIONING SERVICES, INC., AIG/CHARTIS INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Board found the record insufficient to clarify the applicant's last date of industrial exposure to bilateral upper extremities, with conflicting dates reported by medical professionals and the employer. The Board also agreed with the WCJ that other contentions of error should be addressed at the trial level after further record development. Therefore, the case will return to the trial level for a new decision on all issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryBilateral Upper ExtremitiesTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityApportionmentStatute of LimitationsPost-Termination ClaimLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Industrial Exposure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 1979

Claim of Rothenberg v. Rothenberg, Levinson, P. C.

The Workers' Compensation Board, in a decision filed March 1, 1979, disallowed a claim by the claimant, finding that the claimant's angina pectoris did not constitute an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The Board concluded that the claimant's work activities prior to and after October 1974 did not involve or induce emotional stress and strain or tension greater than typical workplace irritations. The appellate court affirmed this decision, noting that substantial evidence in the record supported the Board's determination. The claim was disallowed because it was found that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment.

Angina PectorisAccidental InjuryEmotional StressCourse of EmploymentClaim DenialAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionWork-Related InjuryCausation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wilson v. Tippetts-Abbott-McCarthy-Stratton

The claimant, a 61-year-old civil engineer with a history of hypertension, suffered a paralyzing stroke in 1959 while working in Canada. He contended the stroke was caused by an hour-long radiophone altercation with a superior regarding a report. Conflicting testimony existed on the argument's intensity and causal relationship. The court referenced prior cases on emotional tension leading to accidents under the Workmen's Compensation Law. Ultimately, the board's finding that the argument did not involve greater emotional strain than typical work irritations was sustained, and the decision to disallow the claim was affirmed.

Accidental InjuryEmotional TensionCardiovascular ProblemsWork-Related StrokeCausal RelationshipWorkmen's Compensation BoardSubstantial EvidenceClaim DisallowanceAppeal DecisionEmployer Dispute
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Zaner v. My Toy Co.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board determined that emotional stress and strain experienced during employment were causative factors in the claimant's myocardial infarction and subsequent death. The Board concluded that the effort involved a greater degree of emotional strain and tension than what workers are typically subjected to, thus constituting an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment, with the death causally related to this injury. The court, acting on an appeal from these decisions, reviewed the findings. Ultimately, the court affirmed the board's determination, citing substantial evidence to support the original findings. Costs were awarded to the respondents who filed briefs against the appellants.

Workers' CompensationMyocardial InfarctionEmotional StressCausationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentSubstantial EvidenceBoard DeterminationAppealAffirmed
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2009

Claim of Cuthbert v. Panorama Windows Ltd.

Claimant, a purchasing clerk, sought workers' compensation benefits after being assaulted by a coworker. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, finding the assault originated from work-related differences. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, concluding there was a sufficient nexus between the employment relationship and the assault, despite a history of personal animosity and racial slurs between the individuals. The Board relied on the plant manager's credible testimony, which indicated the claimant's workplace attitude created tension. The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, finding no error in their determination of a work-related nexus for the assault.

AssaultWorkplace InjuryWorkers' CompensationEmployment NexusCoworker DisputeRacial DiscriminationBoard AffirmationAppellate ReviewCredibilityPlant Manager Testimony
References
6
Case No. 88 Civ. 2505 (VLB)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 1994

Gottlieb v. County of Orange

This civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 addresses the tension between familial privacy and the protection of children from sexual abuse. The case arose from a father being directed to leave his home or face the removal of his daughter, following allegations of abuse. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. It granted summary judgment for the individual defendants, finding they were protected by qualified immunity as their actions were objectively reasonable given their training. However, the court denied summary judgment for the institutional defendants, the County of Orange and the Orange County Department of Social Services, indicating potential institutional liability for inadequate procedures and training in child abuse investigations.

Civil RightsChild AbuseFamilial RightsQualified ImmunityMunicipal LiabilitySocial ServicesChild Protective ServicesSummary JudgmentConstitutional LawDue Process
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rought v. Price Chopper Operating Co.

This dissenting opinion argues against applying material hoisting regulations to the process of installing electrical wires by pulling them through conduit. The dissent asserts there is no evidence that the equipment used was lifting or suspending the wires. It highlights that the forklift was used to apply force to pull wires through a 90-degree angle, not to raise them. The opinion refers to the plaintiff's deposition, which clarified that the forklift applied force only after the wire was pushed to the turn, leading to tension that caused the wire to recoil when the rope broke. The dissent concludes that the equipment did not constitute "material hoisting equipment" under 12 NYCRR subpart 23-6, and therefore, the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action should have been dismissed. Stein, J., concurred.

material hoistingelectrical wiresforkliftconduit installationLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)summary judgmentdissenting opinionworkers protectionsafety regulations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Manzanillo

The defendant, charged with sexual abuse and endangering a child, moved to compel the District Attorney to produce the complainant's psychiatric, mental health, and special education records. The defendant argued these records constituted Brady material, essential for evaluating the 14-year-old remedial student complainant's credibility. The People opposed, citing lack of possession, privilege, and the complainant's mother's desire for privacy. The court acknowledged the tension between a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights and a witness's privacy. While denying direct access due to insufficient showing of relevance beyond speculation, the court decided to conduct an in camera inspection of the records to determine if any material and relevant Brady information exists, which would then be disclosed to defense counsel.

Discovery MotionPsychiatric RecordsSpecial Education RecordsComplainant CredibilityBrady MaterialPrivileged InformationIn Camera InspectionDue Process RightsSixth AmendmentPhysician-Patient Privilege
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cramer v. Barney's Clothing Store

A claimant appealed an award for disability due to a myocardial infarction. The board found that an argument with his supervisor about pay led to severe chest pain, and medical evidence supported that excitement from the argument, superimposed on a prior cardiac condition, caused the infarction. The claimant testified to a 20-minute argument with his assistant manager about overtime pay, during which he threatened to go home and experienced chest pains. The court, however, found no legally sufficient basis for the board's finding of an accident, stating the situation did not involve emotional tension greater than typical workplace irritations and was not exceptional enough to meet established legal tests for accident. Consequently, the decision and award were reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Workmen's Compensation Board.

myocardial infarctionworkplace argumentemotional stressworkers' compensationcardiac pathologydisability awardlegal precedentmedical evidenceappealboard finding
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 13 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