News & Cases

Workers' Comp

[11/13] Gelson's Markets, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision and award finding the employer liable for discrimination against an industrially injured employee because the employer did not accept a physician's release to allow the employee to return to work is annulled as the employee did not establish a prima facie showing of employer's liability for discrimination in violation of Labor Code section 132a, and as such, the burden did not shift to the employer to establish an affirmative defense.

[11/04] Liberty Mut. ins. Co. v. Hurlbut
In a constitutional challenge to two amendments to the New York Workers' Compensation Law, the district court's judgment abstaining from the case is affirmed where Burford abstention was appropriate because federal court intervention would be disruptive of a carefully established state system, and might also yield inconsistent and therefore conflicting results.

[10/30] Groover v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
In a wrongful death action based on a construction accident, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where plaintiff's remedy was limited to workers' compensation under Louisiana law.

[10/29] Green-Brown v. Sealand Servs. Inc.
Plaintiff's petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board of the US Department of Labor, affirming an ALJ's decision that awarded hearing loss compensation to plaintiff under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) based on an audiogram that did not comply with the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), is granted and reversed because section 908(c)(13)(E) of the LHWCA mandates that hearing loss compensation be based on hearing loss determinations made in accordance with the AMA Guides.

[10/13] Esquivel v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd.
A ruling reversing a workers' compensation judge's findings and awards in favor of claimant is affirmed where the Worker's Compensation Appeals Board did not err in concluding that claimant's new injuries are not compensable under the Worker's Compensation Act because they clearly occurred outside the reasonable geographic area of her employer's compensability risk.

[10/01] Pedroza v. Benefits Rev. Bd.
In a petition for review of the Benefits Review Board's determination that petitioner was not entitled to disability benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act, the petition is denied where psychological injuries that result from legitimate personnel actions are not compensable under the Act.

[09/09] Williams v. Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs Ins. Serv.
In a negligence action against an insurance agency for failing to include workers compensation in the insurance package arising from a multimillion dollar judgment against plaintiff for injuries suffered by employee in a catastrophic fire, trial court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) the evidence amply supported the court's finding that defendant's employee failed to use the skill and care a reasonably careful insurance professional would have used in similar circumstances; 2) the action is not barred by the statute of limitations; and 3) the trial court did not err in refusing to assign fault to the plaintiff.

[08/26] Beverly Hilton Hotel v. Wkrs.' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a petition for review of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's order requiring petitioner to pay vocational rehabilitation benefits to respondent, the petition is granted where the Board's decision was not a final determination of respondent's right to vocational rehabilitation benefits and because Cal. Lab. Code section 139.5 had been repealed.

[08/21] Baur v. Wkrs.' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a petition for review of a worker's compensation judge's order granting petitioner's employer a credit against future worker's compensation payments resulting from petitioner's injuries, the petition is denied where payments from the California Insurance Guarantee Association counted toward such a credit.

[08/18] Pueschel v. Peters
In an action alleging interference with plaintiff's application for workers' compensation benefits, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff waived her Title VII claim by appealing her claim before the Merit Systems Protection Board to the Federal Circuit; and 2) plaintiff could not be subjected to a hostile work environment where all of the alleged conduct occurred after she left the workplace.

[06/11] Simpson v. Empire Truck Lines, Inc.
In an action arising out of a truck accident under the Texas Workers Compensation Act (TWCA), judgment for Defendant is affirmed where the driver of the truck was not Defendant's statutory employee under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, and thus Defendant was not vicariously liable under the TWCA.

[06/08] Zaragoza v. Ibarra
In an civil action brought by a worker against a homeowner, trial court's grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's injury does not fall within the exclusive purview of the workers' compensation laws despite his employer's status as an unlicensed contractor as defendant had not worked 52 hours in the 90 days prior to the date of the injury specified in Labor Code sec. 3352(h); and 2) defendant was not negligent, as plaintiff's injury was entirely his own fault and there was no want of ordinary care taken by the plaintiff-homeowner.

[05/11] Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Board
In a dispute involving attorney's fees, Court of Appeals judgment is reversed where Labor Code sec. 4607 authorizes an award of attorney fees to employees who successfully resist efforts to terminate their award of continuing medical treatment, but does not permit an award of fees to employees who successfully challenge the denial of specific treatment requests.

[05/04] California Self-Insurer's Sec. Fund v. Lorber Indus. of Cal.
Bankruptcy Court's denial of Plaintiff's request to give its workers' compensation reimbursement claim priority is affirmed where Plaintiff's reimbursement claim did not qualify as an excise tax under 11 U.S.C. section 507(a)(8)(E)(ii).

[04/30] Bontempo v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
In an action involving permanent disability benefits, Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision is annulled with respect to the pulmonary impairment award where the evidence supported plaintiff's claim that he was entitled to the additional 15 percent of permanent disability benefits awardable under Labor Code sec. 4658 (d)(2).

[04/09] Hill v. Director, Office of Workers Comp. Programs
Petition for review of an order of the Benefits Review Board denying plaintiff's claim for survivor's benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act is granted where the Board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Matter is remanded for the award of benefits, as there is no issue of credibility nor any dispute that the deceased suffered from work related pneumoconiosis that led to his death, and thus plaintiff established her entitlement to survivor's benefits as a matter of law.

[03/30] Triple H Debris Removal, Inc. v. Companion Property and Casualty Ins. Co.
In a worker's compensation dispute, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is reversed where there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff breached the first worker's compensation policy between the parties.

[03/30] Del Monte Fresh Produce v. Director, OWCP
In an appeal from an Office of Workers' Compensation order increasing Claimant's disability benefits, the order is affirmed, where 1) substantial evidence supported the ALJ's determination that Claimant was not transferred between facilities due to misconduct, and 2) Claimant showed a change in his condition after the previous benefit award.

[03/16] Wheaton v. Golden Gate Bridge, Hwy. & Transp. Dist.
Petitioner's petition for review of the Office of Workers' Compensation's denial of benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) is denied, where a municipal transportation district was a "subdivision" of the State of California under 33 U.S.C. section 903(b) and thus Petitioner was not entitled to benefits.

[03/11] Carden v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
In an action for ERISA disability benefits, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where Defendant was entitled under its benefits plan to offset Plaintiff's disability benefits by the worker's compensation payments Plaintiff had received.

Back to Main Menu

Welcome |  Firm Overview |  Attorney Profiles |  Practice Areas |  Personal Injury FAQ
Articles |  News & Cases |  Web Resources |  Contact Information |  Directions

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.

Copyright © by Weik, Nitsche, Dougherty & Componovo. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include this copyright statement.

This FirmSite® is designed and hosted by FindLaw®, a service of Thomson-West.