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
May 09, 2011

Coonjbeharry v. Altone Electric, LLC

Plaintiff, an employee at a rubber recycling facility operated by New York Rubber Recycling, LLC, a subsidiary of Permalife Products, LLC, sustained a severe injury resulting in arm amputation while clearing a machine jam. After receiving workers' compensation benefits, plaintiff sued Permalife, New York Rubber, and Altone Electric, LLC for negligence, strict products liability, and failure to warn. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to all defendants. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provisions shielded Permalife and New York Rubber from liability due to their alter ego status. Furthermore, Altone Electric, LLC was found to owe no duty of care and was not responsible for the machine that caused the injury.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyAlter EgoSummary JudgmentNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityFailure to WarnAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryEmployment Law
References
11
Case No. ADJ784406 (FRE 0235717) ADJ1582511 (FRE 0243418)
Regular
Apr 02, 2013

ALTON TALLEY vs. MARK ONE CORPORATION, NBJ/ELNESS CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an arbitration decision regarding medical expense allocation. The decision relied on Dr. Baker's opinion that the December 12, 2006 injury, insured by Intercare, was primarily responsible for treatment expenses between that date and December 10, 2008. The petitioner argued Dr. Baker's report was not substantial evidence and that Dr. Murphy's report should prevail. However, the Board adopted Dr. Baker's report, noting Dr. Murphy's own report largely concurred with its findings for the disputed period.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDALTON TALLEYMARK ONE CORPORATIONNBJ/ELNESS CONVALESCENT HOSPITALINTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICESRICHARD G. BAKERM.D.DR. MURPHYSUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCEMEDICAL OPINION
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bank of New York v. Walden

The defendants, Alton and Patricia Walden, sought a restraining order to prevent their eviction, the reversal of a third-party sale of their house, and the vacatur of a default judgment from November 22, 2000. They alleged that the plaintiff, Bank of New York, and its predecessor, Delta Funding Corporation, engaged in predatory lending practices and violated federal and state real estate consumer protection acts, including the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA). The court found sufficient evidence to suggest fraudulent and misleading practices by the lenders and noted the plaintiff's failure to deny non-compliance with disclosure requirements. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion, allowing them to interpose a verified answer with affirmative defenses and/or counterclaims, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for attorneys' fees and sanctions.

Predatory LendingMortgage FraudTruth in Lending Act (TILA)Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA)Regulation ZDefault JudgmentForeclosureEquitable TollingConsumer ProtectionReal Estate
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Maye v. Alton Manufacturing, Inc.

The claimant bears the burden of establishing a causal relationship between their injury and employment. In this case, the claimant presented a medical report from their treating otolaryngologist, who unequivocally stated that the claimant's hearing loss was 100% causally related to their job, based on a 2007 examination. The report specifically noted the absence of other causes for the hearing loss. The court found that this medical opinion was neither speculative nor a general expression of possibility and was supported by a rational basis. As there was no conflicting medical evidence presented, the Board's rejection of the treating physician’s uncontroverted medical opinion on causation was deemed improper. Consequently, the amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipHearing LossMedical OpinionTreating PhysicianUncontroverted EvidenceBoard RejectionAppellate ReviewRemittalEmployment Injury
References
7
Showing 1-4 of 4 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