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. ADJ4024660 (LAO 0887729)
Regular
Feb 03, 2017

ALFREDO COLLAZO vs. MECA NAG CORPORATION, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and returned the case to the trial level for a new decision. The WCJ erred in determining the lien claimant's entitlement to payment solely on a multiplier of Medicare rates, rather than a reasonable cost basis. The Board clarified that while the facility's charges are not subject to the Official Medical Fee Schedule, their entitlement must be based on their actual costs plus a reasonable profit. Therefore, further proceedings are required to properly assess the reasonable cost basis for the services rendered.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderLien ClaimantReasonable Cost BasisMedicare ReimbursementOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleLong Term Care HospitalKunz StudyTapia
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Marie B.

The case addresses the constitutionality of Family Court Act § 1039(e), which allows a conclusive finding of parental neglect and child removal without an actual determination of abuse or neglect, based solely on a parent's failure to adhere to an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD) or cooperate with a child protective agency. In this specific instance, the Oneida County Department of Social Services initiated neglect proceedings against a mother due to chronic intoxication. An ACD was ordered, requiring the mother to abstain from alcohol and undergo treatment, while the child resided at home. The mother violated the ACD terms, leading the Agency to seek revocation of the ACD and child removal under § 1039(e). Both the Family Court and the Appellate Division found § 1039(e) unconstitutional, arguing that a constructive finding of neglect from an ACD violation is an insufficient basis to interfere with fundamental parental rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed these rulings, emphasizing that an ACD is not a determination on the merits and a violation cannot automatically be transformed into an adjudication of parental neglect; a formal hearing and demonstration of actual neglect are required.

Parental RightsDue ProcessChild NeglectFamily Court ActAdjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD)Child Protective ServicesConstitutional LawChild RemovalJudicial ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
12
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06279 [243 AD3d 476]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2025

InkMango, Inc. v. Warren

This case concerns defamation claims brought by InkMango, Inc., doing business as The Juggernaut, an independent media startup, against reporter Katie Warren and news organization Business Insider. The plaintiff alleged that a March 5, 2024 article written by Warren contained false and defamatory statements. The Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed the complaint under CPLR 3211 (g) and awarded defendants costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 70-a (1) (a). The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division held that the defamation claims involved 'public petition and participation,' triggering the anti-SLAPP law and requiring plaintiff to demonstrate a 'substantial basis' in law by clear and convincing evidence of actual malice. The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet this heightened burden, as the complaint did not sufficiently allege actual malice or that the entire article was defamatory, nor were arguments regarding the initial headline properly preserved. The court also affirmed the award of attorneys' fees to the defendants.

DefamationAnti-SLAPPLibelActual MalicePublic Petition and ParticipationAppellate ReviewDismissal of ComplaintAttorneys' FeesMedia LawFirst Department
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Schulz

Judge Rosenblatt dissents in part from the Court's decision upholding the denial of a defendant's CPL 440.10 (1) (g) motion without a hearing. The dissent argues for a hearing due to the high possibility of the defendant's actual innocence. Key evidence includes the primary victim, Ruiz, submitting a post-trial affidavit stating she is 90% certain the robber was another individual, Guilfoyle, whose photograph was disallowed at trial. The dissent highlights the temporal and geographical proximity, and similar modus operandi of Guilfoyle's other crimes, contrasting with the majority's view of 'remoteness'. Rosenblatt asserts that Ruiz's affidavit, especially following a 'borderline ruling' on the photograph, is too significant to dismiss summarily, and a hearing could provide an 'additional measure of truth' and serve the 'higher ends of justice'.

Criminal LawPost-Conviction ReliefActual InnocenceCPL 440.10 MotionWitness IdentificationEvidentiary RulingDissenting OpinionModus OperandiAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Voll

The debtors, Patrick L. Voll and Linda P. Voll, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ("Tax Department") willfully violated the automatic stay by continuing to garnish Mrs. Voll's wages post-petition, despite receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing. The garnishment ceased, and the improperly deducted funds were returned after the Debtors filed a motion for sanctions. The court found that the Tax Department willfully violated the automatic stay. However, the court denied the Debtors' claim for emotional distress damages, finding they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of significant emotional harm distinct from the general stressors of bankruptcy and other life events. The court awarded the Debtors $13,625.00 in attorneys' fees as actual damages for the willful violation of the stay.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic Stay ViolationWage GarnishmentSanctions MotionAttorneys' Fees AwardChapter 13 BankruptcyTaxation and FinanceActual DamagesEmotional Distress ClaimsWillful Violation
References
28
Case No. RDG 124972
Regular
Apr 15, 2008

DAVID BURKE vs. CITY OF NEVADA CITY, GREGORY B. BRAGG & ASSOCIATES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award was unclear, making it difficult to distinguish stipulated facts from the WCJ's actual findings. The Board rescinded the award, returning the case for further proceedings and a clearer decision from the WCJ, particularly regarding the basis for temporary disability findings. Defendant's contentions regarding industrial injury to the psyche and permanent disability were not reached at this time.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJStipulationsIndustrial InjuryPsycheTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
1
Case No. ADJ6909770 ADJ6965468 ADJ7253924 ADJ7252123
Regular
Dec 03, 2010

SYLVIA SANTOS vs. GUARD MANAGEMENT, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case involves Sylvia Santos's petition for reconsideration after her request to disqualify the presiding workers' compensation judge was denied. The basis for her disqualification petition, and subsequently her reconsideration request, was her unsubstantiated allegation of ex parte communications between the judge and the opposing party. The Board denied reconsideration, finding that Santos failed to provide specific facts demonstrating actual bias or prejudice by the judge. Therefore, the matter will return to the trial calendar for further proceedings.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDENIAL OF PETITIONDISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGEPRESIDING WORKERS' COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGEPWCJ REPORTORDER DENYING DISQUALIFICATIONVEXATIOUS LITIGANTEX PARTE COMMUNICATIONSBIAS
References
0
Case No. MON 0284020
Regular
Apr 07, 2008

JUAN RAMON VAQUIS vs. SANTA MONICA EXPRESS, INC., KEMPER EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the proof of service for the disallowance of Managedmed's lien was not properly admitted into evidence, thus lacking a factual basis for the WCJ's finding of timely service. The Board rescinded the prior order and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine actual service and rule on the lien claimant's motion to set aside the disallowance. This decision emphasizes the requirement for admitted evidence to support findings, especially concerning service and potential relief under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b).

Lien ClaimantReconsiderationWCJDisallowanceProof of ServiceAdmitted EvidenceRecord of ProceedingsWCAB RulesLabor CodeCCP 473(b)
References
2
Case No. ADJ7410586
Regular
May 18, 2012

Randall Salcido vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the applicant's temporary disability benefits should be based on his earnings as a teacher on the date of injury. The defendant argued that benefits should be based on the applicant's lower subsequent earnings as a warehouse supervisor, as the transfer was anticipated. However, the Board held that the applicant's actual earnings as a teacher reflected his earning capacity and that the lower warehouse supervisor wage was an aberrant basis for calculation. The Board also noted that using the lower wage would incentivize employers to downsize to reduce liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactDisability BenefitsVocational TeacherEarnings CalculationTemporary DisabilityAverage Weekly EarningsEarning CapacityLabor Code Section 4453
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eisenberg v. Strasser

The case involves the affirmation of an Appellate Division order concerning the invalidation of a candidate's designating petition. The court agreed that using a different name ("Tony Eisenberg" instead of "Anatoly Eyzenberg") was not a basis for disqualification. However, the petition was correctly invalidated because the candidate did not actually reside at the address listed on the petition and used for voter registration. The court distinguished this situation from a prior case, Matter of Ferris v Sadowski, where a candidate's former address was listed due to a campaign worker's error. In this instance, the candidate knowingly used a non-residential address.

Election LawVoter RegistrationResidency RequirementsPetition InvalidityCandidate DisqualificationAppellate ReviewDesignating Petition
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,929 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