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. ADJ4086603 (LAO 0829698) ADJ4469358 (LAO 0829699)
Regular
May 01, 2009

ADA ROZENBLAT vs. CEDARS SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board notice addresses a dispute over attorney's fees and costs awarded as sanctions. The defense seeks $800.50 for opposing a petition for reconsideration, while applicant's counsel, Daniel Escamilla, concedes only $540.00. The Board finds $800.50 reasonable and proposes to award this amount to defense counsel, Pearlman, Borska & Wax, L.L.P. This award is separate from any other sanctions payable to the General Fund.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDADA ROZENBLATCEDARS SINAI HEALTH SYSTEMADJ4086603ADJ4469358ATTORNEY'S FEESCOSTSSANCTIONSLABOR CODE § 5813PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
0
Case No. ADA
Regular
Jul 18, 2011

DANIEL CUEVAS vs. OLTMAN'S CONSTRUCTION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, in Liquidation, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP, INC. (Servicing Facility)

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by defendant CIGA regarding an award of psychiatric treatment for an industrial ankle injury. The applicant, Daniel Cuevas, passed away from cancer, rendering the issue of his entitlement to further medical treatment moot. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition and rescinded the original award. The Board substituted a new finding stating that the applicant's death mooted the treatment issue.

CIGAliquidationreconsiderationmootpsychiatric treatmentcortisone injectionindustrial ankle injurymedical treatment awardrescindsubstituted
References
0
Case No. ADJ2446515 (VNO 0554414) ADJ3948039 (VNO 0554416) ADJ3253938 (VNO 0554418)
Regular
May 03, 2010

ADA GONZALEZ vs. VAN NUYS SHEET METAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an order dismissing applicant Ada Gonzalez's claims. The dismissal was based on the applicant's failure to respond to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss. However, the WCJ acknowledged that a change of address for the applicant's attorney was not updated in the system, and notices were sent to the wrong address. Consequently, the Board found the dismissal improper due to a due process violation and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalNotice of Intention to DismissDue ProcessEAMS systemChange of AddressService of ProcessRescinded OrderTrial Level Proceedings
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Atria Senior Living Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Ernest Rodriguez sued his former employer Atria Senior Living Group under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Rodriguez moved for partial summary judgment on one ADA reasonable accommodation claim, one ADA retaliation claim, and six FMLA interference claims. The Court denied Rodriguez's motion for partial summary judgment in its entirety. The Court granted summary judgment to Atria on the ADA reasonable accommodation claim, the ADA retaliation claim, and four of the FMLA claims, finding no genuine disputes of material fact. However, for two FMLA claims concerning health insurance premiums and concurrent workers' compensation leave, the Court denied summary judgment to both parties due to unresolved factual disputes.

ADA accommodationADA retaliationFMLA interferenceSummary judgmentMedical leaveDisability discrimination100% healed policyHealth insurance premiumsWorkers' compensationEmployee benefits
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corr v. MTA Long Island Bus

Plaintiff Thomas V. Corr sued MTA Long Island Bus (LI Bus), several MTA officials, Transport Workers Union Local 252, and a union official, alleging termination due to disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and breach of an employment agreement, along with state law claims. The MTA Defendants and Union Defendants moved for summary judgment or dismissal. The court granted summary judgment for the MTA Defendants on the ADA claim, finding the plaintiff failed to establish he could perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation. Individual ADA claims were dismissed as individual liability does not exist under the ADA. The Union Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ADA claim was also granted due to lack of termination authority and untimeliness of other claims. The breach of employment agreement claim was dismissed as time-barred, and all state law claims were dismissed due to the absence of federal jurisdiction.

Americans with Disabilities ActADADisability DiscriminationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementUnion RepresentationStatute of LimitationsEmployment LawFederal Civil Procedure
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirkendall v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

The case involves William Kirkendall and other UPS employees suing UPS under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) after suffering back and other injuries due to a policy change requiring lifting heavier packages. Plaintiffs allege UPS refused accommodations. The court first addresses UPS's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the ADA claim should go to arbitration per the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The court, citing Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., denies this motion, stating that individual statutory rights under the ADA are not waived by a CBA. The court then considers UPS's motion for summary judgment, arguing Kirkendall is not disabled under the ADA or cannot perform essential job functions. The court finds Kirkendall's degenerative disk disease and associated lifting and sitting limitations (e.g., inability to lift over 30 lbs, sit for more than 3 hours) do not constitute a 'substantial limitation' of a 'major life activity' as defined by the ADA, nor has he shown he is restricted from a class or broad range of jobs. Therefore, the court grants summary judgment to UPS, dismissing the complaint.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Disability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentArbitration ClauseCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Statutory RightsContractual RightsSubstantial LimitationMajor Life Activity
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2013

Joseph v. HDMJ Restaurant, Inc.

Plaintiff Germelia Joseph sued HDMJ Restaurant, Inc. and its owners for discrimination under ADA, Title VII, NYHRL, and New York Labor Law. After initial dismissals of some claims and individual defendants, HDMJ failed to retain counsel, leading to a default. Magistrate Judge Tomlinson recommended granting default judgment in part for Title VII claims (hostile work environment and retaliation) and denying it for ADA claims, finding no disability under the ADA. District Judge Seybert adopted the R&R, awarding Plaintiff $10,650.00 in back pay, prejudgment interest, $30,000.00 in compensatory damages for emotional distress, and $4,371.75 in attorney's fees. The ADA claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Title VII discriminationADA claimsHostile work environmentRetaliationDefault judgmentEmotional distress damagesBack payPre-judgment interestAttorney's feesEmployment discrimination
References
136
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sherman v. County of Suffolk

Steven Sherman, a former Correction Officer I, filed an action against his former employers, the County of Suffolk and several individual supervisors, alleging age and disability discrimination under the ADA, ADEA, NYSHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Sherman claimed he suffered discrimination due to a quad muscle injury sustained during training and his age, leading to a hostile work environment and eventual termination. The Court dismissed claims against the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, individual defendants under ADA, hostile work environment under ADA, and all Section 1983 claims. However, the Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding Sherman's ADA discrimination and retaliation claims against Suffolk County and his state law claims under NYSHRL, citing genuine issues of material fact.

Age DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentAmericans with Disabilities ActAge Discrimination in Employment ActNew York State Human Rights LawSection 1983Employment LawQualified Individual
References
98
Case No. 94 Civ. 2336
Regular Panel Decision

Mohamed v. Marriott International, Inc.

Ahmed Mohamed, a profoundly deaf individual, sued Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Corporation under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law for wrongful discharge. Marriott moved for summary judgment, arguing Mohamed should be judicially estopped from asserting an ADA claim because he had previously applied for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (SSDI), stating he was unable to work. The court denied Marriott's motion. It ruled that judicial estoppel was inappropriate given the differing legal standards between ADA and SSDI, the nature of SSDI administrative determinations (paper application for a listed disability), and the policy goals of the ADA which encourage disabled individuals to seek employment. The court found ample evidence that Mohamed was able to perform the essential functions of his job.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Judicial EstoppelSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationSocial Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)New York State Human Rights LawEmployment LawQualified Individual with a DisabilityReasonable AccommodationDeafness
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2000

Potter v. Xerox Corp.

Plaintiff Michael G. Potter sued his former employer Xerox Corporation and Health International, Inc., the administrator of Xerox's disability benefits plan, alleging discrimination based on age and disability under the ADA and ADEA. Potter claimed wrongful termination and denial of long-term disability benefits due to his depression and anxiety, which he attributed to problems with a supervisor. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court found no basis for HI's liability under ADA or ADEA, stating that a mere denial of benefits is not a discrimination claim under the ADA. Furthermore, the court determined that Potter failed to establish he had a 'disability' as defined by the ADA, as his inability to work was primarily due to a specific supervisor, not a broader limitation. Lastly, the court found insufficient evidence of age discrimination against Xerox. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment to both defendants and dismissed the complaint.

Age discriminationDisability discriminationADAADEASummary judgmentEmployment terminationLong-term disability benefitsWorkplace stressSupervisor conflictMental impairment
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 246 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