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

Claim of Joyner v. Event Design Associates, Inc.

Claimant was retained by Event Design Associates, Inc. (EDA) to transport furniture and event props for a party. While en route to a hotel during this assignment, claimant was involved in an automobile accident and sustained serious injuries. Subsequently, claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits, asserting an employer-employee relationship with EDA. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled in favor of the claimant, finding that an employment relationship existed. EDA appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship, based on factors such as EDA's control over the work, method of payment, and right to terminate.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorSubstantial EvidenceControl TestAppellate ReviewAutomobile AccidentNew YorkWorkers' Compensation BoardTemporary Employment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lippman v. Public Employment Relations Board

This proceeding involved the Unified Court System (UCS) challenging a determination by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB had found that UCS violated the Taylor Law by unilaterally issuing an administrative order in December 1997 that amended regulations (22 NYCRR part 108) related to court reporters' fees for selling transcripts to litigants. The court reviewed PERB's findings that the new page-rate guidelines and a mandatory "Minute Agreement Form" constituted an improper practice by altering terms of employment. The court concluded that there was no substantial evidence to support PERB's finding that the page-rate guidelines actually limited reporters' compensation. Furthermore, while the Agreement Form did alter some aspects of employment, its impact was minimal and outweighed by UCS's broader mission to ensure understandable, uniform, timely, and affordable access to justice. Therefore, the court annulled PERB's determination and granted the petition.

Public Employment RelationsTaylor LawCourt ReportersTranscript FeesAdministrative OrderCollective BargainingTerms of EmploymentJudicial AdministrationAccess to JusticePublic Policy
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lashlee v. Pepsi-Cola Newburgh Bottling

The Special Disability Fund appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant's average weekly wage calculation. The claimant, injured while employed by Pepsi-Cola, also had concurrent employment with Mid-Hudson Limousine Service, Inc. and Robert H. Auchmoody Funeral Homes, Inc. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) included Auchmoody as a concurrent employer, increasing the claimant's average weekly wage. The Fund argued that Auchmoody should not be considered a "covered" employer because there was no proof of workers' compensation insurance. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ’s decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that "covered" employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) refers to an employer subject to the Workers’ Compensation Law, irrespective of whether they actually carried an insurance policy, and that the law must be liberally construed in favor of employees.

Workers’ CompensationConcurrent EmploymentAverage Weekly WageCovered EmploymentIndependent ContractorSpecial Disability FundInsurance PolicyLiberal ConstructionAppellate DivisionWCLJ Decision
References
4
Case No. ADJ10544667
Regular
Nov 15, 2019

NEREYDA VARGAS vs. WELLS FARGO BANK NORTH AMERICA, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision finding no industrial psychiatric injury. The Board found the original decision failed to conduct the multi-level analysis required by *Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc.* concerning actual employment events and lawful, good faith personnel actions. The case is returned to the trial level for further development and analysis to determine if actual employment events predominated the injury and if any lawful personnel actions were a substantial cause. The Workers' Compensation Judge must specifically address all alleged events, medical evidence, and potential inconsistencies in the Qualified Medical Evaluator's reports.

psychiatric injurycumulative traumaRolda analysispredominant causelawful personnel actionnondiscriminatorygood faithactual events of employmentpredicate eventsmedical evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Express Publishing Corp.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against American Express Publishing Corporation, alleging age discrimination in the termination of J. Stewart Lahey's employment, violating the ADEA. American Express moved for summary judgment, arguing Lahey had released his ADEA claim by signing an agreement for severance pay. A previous summary judgment motion was denied due to factual issues regarding the knowing and voluntary nature of the release. The court, applying factors such as Lahey's education, time to review the agreement, role in negotiation, and clarity of terms, found that while some factors favored dismissal, significant factual disputes remained. These disputes include the actual time Lahey possessed the release, whether he genuinely negotiated its terms, and the extent and understanding of the consideration received. Therefore, the court denied American Express's renewed motion for summary judgment, concluding these issues require a trial.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationRelease AgreementSummary JudgmentVoluntary WaiverKnowing WaiverSeverance PayFactual DisputeADEAEmployee Rights
References
4
Case No. ADJ9271761 ADJ10135600
Regular
Mar 06, 2017

MICHELE DYE vs. CDCR PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant's claim for psychiatric injury, primarily arguing that actual employment events, not just misperceptions, were the predominant cause. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the judge's award, finding substantial evidence supported the applicant's claim. The Board found that documented workplace stressors, including contradictory orders and perceived harassment from supervisors, met the legal standard for "actual events of employment." Therefore, the Board upheld the award for temporary total disability, rejecting the defendant's arguments that the injury stemmed solely from misperceptions.

Psychiatric injuryActual events of employmentLabor Code section 3208.3Substantial evidenceWCJ credibilityIndustrial injuryRegistered nurseMisperceptions of job harassmentPQMECausation analysis
References
4
Case No. ADJ13170316
Regular
Mar 14, 2023

ELEAZAR ORTEGA vs. SANTA CRUZ MONTEREY MERCED MANAGED MEDICAL CARE, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The applicant sought reconsideration after the WCJ denied her claim for psychiatric injury AOE/COE, finding that actual employment events did not predominantly cause her condition. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, agreeing with the WCJ that the applicant failed to prove alleged unfair treatment by her supervisor or HR was not a subjective belief. The Board also affirmed the WCJ's finding that any actual employment events, such as performance critiques, constituted lawful, good faith personnel actions. Therefore, the applicant's petition was denied as she did not establish a compensable psychiatric injury.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPSYCHIATRIC INJURYAOE/COEFINDINGS AND ORDERPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONQUALIFIED MEDICAL EXAMINERPREDOMINANT CAUSEGOOD FAITH PERSONNEL ACTIONLABOR CODE SECTION 3208.3SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Craig v. Jefferson Auto Painting Co.

The claimant, an automobile sander and polisher, sustained eye injuries when a coemployee threw a chemical solution during an assault. The incident occurred after the claimant refused to participate in a false accusation against a foreman, leading to threats during working hours and the actual assault immediately after work, just outside the employer's premises. The Workers' Compensation Board determined the assault was work-connected and within the reasonable time and space limits of employment, thus finding the resultant disability compensable. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, challenging the applicability of the proximity rule and the determination that the incident occurred in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, relying on the 'continued altercation rule' which allows recovery for work-connected quarrels extending beyond employment limits, and emphasized that an employee remains in the course of employment until a suitable opportunity to leave the workplace is provided.

Workers' CompensationAssaultWork-Connected InjuryEmployment ScopeContinued Altercation RulePremises LiabilityCoemployee MisconductDisability BenefitsAppealJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01347
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2021

Treacy v. Inspired Event Productions, LLC

Peter Treacy, a Teamsters' Union laborer, was injured on a loading dock when a crate fell on him while unloading materials for an event. He subsequently filed claims against multiple defendants under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing Treacy's claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Treacy was not a covered worker under the Labor Law as his duties were limited to unloading materials on a permanent loading dock and he was not involved in the actual construction being performed at the site.

Worker injuryloading docksummary judgmentLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241(6)construction workerscope of employmentappellate reviewTeamsters' Unionpremises liability
References
7
Case No. ADJ9190661 ADJ9735754 ADJ9735757
Regular
Nov 20, 2015

WILLIAM CRONIN vs. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY as administered by MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and found that William Cronin sustained a psychiatric industrial injury arising out of and in the course of employment with Honeywell International. The Board affirmed that actual employment events were predominant causes of the injury. Defendant failed to prove the injury was substantially caused by a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action, as the events cited did not constitute a substantial cause. The previous award was rescinded and substituted with this finding, deferring other issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPsychiatric InjuryActual Events of EmploymentPredominant CauseGood Faith Personnel ActionDue ProcessAdmissible EvidenceAgreed Medical ExaminerTreating Physician Reports
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 11,023 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