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

Law v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Sherdic Law challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Social Security Income disability benefits, alleging disability due to various impairments including chronic leg pain, lower back pain, hepatitis C, and hyperthyroidism. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Law's claim, finding he could perform sedentary work. U.S. District Judge Mukasey vacated the SSA's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that the ALJ failed to adequately develop the administrative record regarding Law’s chronic leg pain, specifically omitting to obtain and review his EMG report despite objective medical evidence and Law’s testimony. This failure resulted in Law not receiving a full and fair hearing.

Social Security IncomeDisability BenefitsChronic Leg PainHerniated DiscHepatitis CHyperthyroidismHypertensionLumbar SpineAdministrative Law JudgeRemand
References
23
Case No. ADJ 4252592 (VNO 0411668)ADJ 3234790 (VNO 0443319) (MF)
Regular
May 04, 2012

HARRY WINSTON vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration by the City of Los Angeles challenging the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) finding of a single cumulative trauma injury. The applicant stipulated to two separate cumulative trauma periods for various injuries, but subsequent medical opinions from treating physicians concluded there was one continuous cumulative trauma injury spanning the applicant's entire employment. The ALJ amended the stipulations to align with this medical evidence and dismissed one of the applicant's cases as duplicative. Therefore, the ALJ recommends denying the employer's petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative Trauma InjuryAmended FindingsOpinion on DecisionStipulationsMedical EvaluationQualified Medical EvaluationAgreed Medical EvaluationDate of Injury
References
10
Case No. ADJ1936318
Regular
Jun 17, 2013

JUAN RIVERA vs. MORROW CABLE, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision. The ALJ recommended dismissal or denial of the petition due to improper verification by the defendant's attorney. The central issue was the necessity and reasonableness of a $165 lien for an interpreter to translate a Compromise and Release document for a Spanish-speaking applicant. The ALJ found such interpretation reasonable and necessary to protect both parties, rejecting the defendant's argument that the applicant's attorney speaking Spanish negated this need.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJUnverified PetitionLabor Code Section 5902CCP 446VerificationDismissalLienLogos Language
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Tijani

After beginning unemployment insurance benefits, the claimant's benefits were reduced due to concurrent receipt of workers' compensation benefits. An Administrative Law Judge sustained this reduction. The claimant's subsequent appeal to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was dismissed as untimely. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting the claimant's concession that the benefit reduction was proper and that he had no obvious reason to appeal the initial ALJ decision. The court also stated that any claims regarding later adjustments to unemployment benefits due to workers' compensation suspension were beyond the current record's scope and must be pursued before the agency.

Unemployment InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsBenefit AdjustmentUntimely AppealAdministrative DecisionsJudicial ReviewConcession of FactAppellate ProcedureScope of ReviewLabor Law
References
2
Case No. Z docket
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2007

Matter of Administration for Children's Servs. v. Silvia S.

The Administration for Children's Services (ACS) filed a motion in Family Court, Queens County, seeking an order to compel the respondent, Silvia S., to produce her psychological, psychiatric, and medical records. ACS argued that these records were necessary to investigate allegations of child neglect involving Silvia S. and her child, Daniel C., following incidents related to her seizure disorder, homelessness, and postpartum depression. The court, presided over by Judge Edwina G. Richardson-Mendelson, denied the motion. The judge found that ACS had not demonstrated a meritorious cause of action for neglect and was improperly seeking pre-petition disclosure to determine if a cause of action existed. The court also emphasized the need for confidentiality under HIPAA and Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13, concluding that the interest of justice did not outweigh the respondent's need for privacy given the lack of a stated cause of action and no harm to the child.

Child NeglectMedical Records DisclosurePsychiatric RecordsPsychological RecordsPre-Petition DisclosureCPLR 3102(c)Family Court Act § 1038(d)HIPAAMental Hygiene Law § 33.13Confidentiality
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Slesin v. Administrator, Occupational Safety & Health Administration

Louis Slesin filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking documents from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the regulation of nonionizing radiation. OSHA released some documents but withheld portions of others, citing Exemption 5 of FOIA. Slesin cross-moved for an in camera inspection of the redactions and for summary judgment. District Judge Leval denied Slesin's cross-motion and granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court found that the redacted materials, which included staff opinions, recommendations, and internal timetables related to OSHA's deliberative process for developing new health standards, were properly withheld under Exemption 5, which protects internal agency communications reflecting deliberative or policy-making processes. The judge concluded that OSHA had adequately demonstrated that the excised material fell within the lawful exemption.

FOIAExemption 5Deliberative Process PrivilegeSummary JudgmentOccupational Safety and Health AdministrationNonionizing RadiationRegulatory StandardsAgency DeliberationsInformation DisclosureGovernment Transparency
References
10
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03114 [171 AD3d 1410]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2019

Matter of Harry's Nurses Registry, Inc. (Commissioner of Labor)

Harry's Nurses Registry, Inc. (HNR), a staffing agency, appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had assessed HNR for additional unemployment insurance contributions for health care workers for the years 2008-2010, reversing an Administrative Law Judge's decision. HNR's main contention on appeal was that the Board was bound by a prior unappealed Administrative Law Judge decision from 1999, which had found HNR's health care workers to be independent contractors for an earlier audit period. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board is not bound by prior unappealed Administrative Law Judge decisions, especially when covering different audit periods and presenting additional factors of control.

Unemployment InsuranceStaffing AgencyHealth Care WorkersIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee StatusUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAdministrative Law Judge DecisionStare DecisisAudit PeriodAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 8 N.Y.3d 892
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2007

In the Matter of Cagle v. Judge Motor Corporation

This case involves a motion for reargument of a motion for leave to appeal. The initial motion for leave to appeal was previously denied, as referenced in 7 NY3d 922. Kim M. Cagle, as Voluntary Administrator of the Estate of John R. Cagle, Deceased, is the appellant. Judge Motor Corporation and the Workers' Compensation Board are the respondents. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York considered the motion on February 5, 2007, and rendered its decision on March 22, 2007.

Motion for ReargumentLeave to AppealWorkers' CompensationEstateVoluntary Administrator
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayor of New York v. Council of New York

This dissenting opinion argues against the majority's decision upholding New York City Local Laws 18 and 19 (2001), which unilaterally expanded the definition of uniformed services employees to alter the scope of collective bargaining. Judge Read contends that these local laws are preempted by the statewide Taylor Law, which grants the Mayor exclusive authority over negotiating with municipal unions. The dissent highlights the historical context of New York City's collective bargaining system, established through a tripartite agreement in 1966 and subsequently codified, emphasizing that changes to this scope were traditionally negotiated, not legislated by the City Council. The opinion asserts that the Council's actions infringe upon the Mayor's management rights and exceed its legislative authority under Civil Service Law § 212, which only permits local legislation in specific areas like representation status or impasse procedures. Judge Read warns that the decision destabilizes long-settled labor relations and allows the Council to act as an unauthorized negotiator.

Taylor LawCollective BargainingPublic Sector Labor RelationsLocal Law PreemptionNew York City Administrative CodeMunicipal UnionsCivil Service LawExecutive OrdersLegislative AuthorityManagement Rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Alamin v. Down Town Taxi, Inc.

Claimant, a taxi driver, sustained neck and back injuries in a February 2008 work-related motor vehicle accident. His workers' compensation claim was established. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits from February 2008 to October 2009, finding a moderate causally related disability after November 2008. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board later rescinded awards after November 20, 2008, ruling that no further causally related disability existed from that date. Claimant's subsequent request for reconsideration and/or full Board review was denied. The current court dismissed the appeals from the WCLJ's January 2013 decision and the Board's January 2014 decision due to procedural irregularities (direct appeal from WCLJ and untimely filing of notice of appeal). The court affirmed the Board’s March 2014 decision denying reconsideration, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion or act arbitrarily, as the claimant failed to present new evidence or demonstrate a material change in condition.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureDismissal of AppealReconsideration DenialCausally Related DisabilityMotor Vehicle AccidentIndependent Medical ExaminationProcedural BarAbuse of DiscretionTimeliness of Appeal
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 18,674 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