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. 2015-2418 K C
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2018

Remedial Med. Care, P.C. v. Park Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Civil Court concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant, Park Insurance Co., sought summary judgment to dismiss the complaint filed by Remedial Medical Care, P.C., as assignee of Thomas Brown. The Civil Court initially denied the motion but found that the defendant had established timely mailing of denials. The Appellate Term modified the order, granting summary judgment to the defendant for a bill of services rendered on August 23, 2012, as it was paid according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. However, for the remaining bills, the defendant failed to prove timely mailing of IME scheduling letters, thus failing to demonstrate that the IMEs were properly scheduled or that the assignor failed to appear. Therefore, the denial of summary judgment for the remaining claims was affirmed.

Summary JudgmentNo-Fault BenefitsIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Timely MailingWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAppellate TermCivil CourtDenial of ClaimFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guerrero Toro v. Northstar Demolition

Plaintiff Alexander Guerrero Toro, a pro se asbestos handler, sued NorthStar Demolition & Remediation LP under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), alleging failure to accommodate his carpal tunnel syndrome, wrongful termination, workplace harassment, and retaliation. After experiencing pain in his right arm, Plaintiff was placed on restricted duty, limiting his ability to perform essential job functions. Defendant provided various temporary light-duty assignments, but eventually, no suitable tasks remained due to seasonal changes and Plaintiff's ongoing limitations. Plaintiff also claimed harassment from co-workers and supervisors, and retaliation for filing administrative complaints. The court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate he could perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, or that a hostile work environment or retaliation existed based on admissible evidence. The NYSHRL claims were also dismissed, with some being jurisdictionally barred due to the election of remedies.

Americans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeReasonable AccommodationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigationEmployment LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
122
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 1981

Malone v. Jacobs

This case involves an appeal by defendants Stephen and John Jacobs from a Supreme Court order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Daniel and Linda Malone. The Malones sought damages for personal injuries Daniel sustained in an automobile accident with Stephen Jacobs, with both men being volunteer firemen responding to an alarm. The appellate court determined that both were acting in the line of duty, making the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law their exclusive remedy. Consequently, the order was reversed, granting defendants leave to amend their answer to assert this exclusive remedy defense, and summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the Malones' complaint. The court also affirmed that John Jacobs, as the vehicle owner, could rely on the same defense due to vicarious liability.

Volunteer Firemen's Benefit LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseAutomobile AccidentPersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumLine of DutyVicarious LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
6
Case No. ADJ4415679 (OAK 0259031) ADJ2701101 (WCK0050594)
Regular
May 10, 2010

Stanley Sanders vs. REMEDY INTELLIGENT STAFFING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, OREGON STEEL MILLS, INC. dba NAPA PIPE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a judge's decision, ruling that Napa Pipe, a self-insured special employer, is liable for applicant Stanley Sanders' workers' compensation benefits. Despite an agreement between the general employer (Remedy Temp) and Napa Pipe attempting to limit liability to Remedy Temp's insurer (Reliance), Napa Pipe's joint and several liability as a special employer cannot be contractually eliminated. Because Napa Pipe's self-insurance was not excluded for special employees and constitutes "other insurance" under Insurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9), CIGA is relieved of its obligation to provide benefits following Reliance's insolvency. Therefore, Napa Pipe must now provide all workers' compensation benefits and administer the claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardStanley SandersRemedy Intelligent StaffingCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationReliance National Insurance CompanyOregon Steel MillsNapa PipeADJ4415679ADJ2701101Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration
References
24
Case No. ADJ1396723
Regular
Nov 19, 2015

JESUS MENDOZA SANCHEZ vs. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR

The applicant sought removal from an order requiring a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in nephrology, arguing it would cause prejudice and irreparable harm. The Appeals Board denied the removal petition, citing that removal is an extraordinary remedy and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found that the prior QME in internal medicine/endocrinology recommended a nephrology evaluation for permanent disability assessment. The denial was based on the failure to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and the procedural adequacy of reconsideration.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorNephrologyEndocrinologySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationFindings and OrderMedical Dispute
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2008

Brown v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Plaintiff Curtis Brown, an African-American Correction Officer, sued his employer, the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), and other defendants, alleging severe and continual racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation by his white coworkers. He filed multiple administrative charges and then commenced this action asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The court addressed the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing claims against individual defendants under Title VII, various institutional defendants, all constructive discharge claims, and state law claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity or the election of remedies. However, the court denied summary judgment on Brown's Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims against DOCS, and his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims against individual defendants, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the pervasive nature of harassment and the adequacy of the employer's remedial actions.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983Eleventh AmendmentSummary Judgment MotionCorrectional Services
References
76
Case No. ADJ1575513 (ANA 0339482) ADJ4199991 (ANA 0342546)
Regular
Jun 16, 2017

ELIZABETH ORTEGA vs. REMEDY TEMPORARY SERVICES, RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE, In Liquidation, Adjusted By INTERCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, J.C. PENNEY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Applicant Elizabeth Ortega's workers' compensation claim against Remedy Temporary Services, Reliance National Insurance, J.C. Penney, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition for reconsideration filed by one of the parties. After careful consideration of the record and the report of the workers' compensation judge, the Board denied the petition.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgedenial of reconsiderationRemedy Temporary ServicesReliance National InsuranceIntercare Insurance CompanyJ.C. PenneyLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanyElizabeth Ortega
References
0
Case No. AHM 0131796
Regular
Nov 05, 2007

MICHAEL QUEVEDO vs. MAIL WELL/ANDERSON LITHOGRAPH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's notice of intent to disallow a Compromise and Release is not a final order. Furthermore, the Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of prejudice or irreparable harm to justify the extraordinary remedy. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a decision on the adequacy of the C&R.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCompromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeVocational RehabilitationNotice of Intent to DisallowFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive Right
References
6
Case No. ADJ3388315 (SBR 0294441) ADJ683842 (SBR 0340933)
Regular
Jul 22, 2014

Marvin Camacho vs. Western Metal Lathe, Sompo Japan Insurance Company, Broadspire, Remedy Temp, Reliance National, California Insurance Guarantee Association, Williams Furnace Company, St. Paul Fire & Marine, Kimco Staffing, Liberty Mutual Insurance

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Williams Furnace Company's petition for reconsideration and granted Sompo Japan Insurance Company's petition. The Board affirmed the original award for Marvin Camacho's neck and back injuries sustained while employed by Remedy Temp and Western Metal Lathe, as well as prior injuries to his cervical and lumbar spine from Williams Furnace Company. Issues of temporary total disability, additional attorney's fees, and other matters were deferred for further development at the trial level. Liberty Mutual Insurance, carrier for Kimco Staffing, was dismissed from the case.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDWESTERN METAL LATHESOMPO JAPAN INSURANCE COMPANYBROADSPIREREMEDY TEMPRELIANCE NATIONALCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONWILLIAMS FURNACE COMPANYST. PAUL FIRE & MARINEKIMCO STAFFING
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 1988

Hill v. General Motors Corp.

The case involves a plaintiff who sued General Motors for wrongful discharge and the UAW for breach of its duty of fair representation, a "hybrid" action under 29 U.S.C. § 185. The defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to exhaust internal union remedies. The court denied both motions, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the adequacy of the union's internal appeals procedures to provide full relief and whether exhaustion would cause unreasonable delay. Additionally, the court denied defendants' motion to strike the plaintiff's demand for a jury trial.

Labor LawUnion Grievance ProceduresDuty of Fair RepresentationExhaustion of RemediesSummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissWrongful TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal Court JurisdictionJury Trial Right
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 1,889 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