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

Video Aid Corp. v. Town of Wallkill

The case discusses whether Video Aid Corp. should be reimbursed for an unconstitutional $27,000 water sewer tap-in fee paid to the Town of Wallkill to obtain a building permit. This dissenting opinion, authored by Bellacosa, J., argues that the Appellate Division's order for reimbursement was correct, stating that the payment was made under legal duress. The dissent highlights that the Town unlawfully exacted the fee, impeding Video Aid's business expansion, and that Video Aid's immediate lawsuit constituted "authentic resistance." It draws on precedents affirming that municipalities cannot manipulate responsibilities for revenue generation and that involuntary payments, even without formal protest, warrant recovery, ultimately advocating for affirmance of the reimbursement order.

Unconstitutional feeLegal duressInvoluntary paymentBuilding permitMunicipal feesReimbursementTown of WallkillVideo Aid Corp.Business expansionAppellate Division
References
11
Case No. ADJ769451 (MON 0236205)
Regular
Apr 01, 2010

CLEMI BOUBLI vs. CAST & CREW PAYROLL, CNA

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal after the WCJ struck an Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) report and closed discovery. The AME reviewed surveillance videos suggesting the applicant's reported disability was feigned or exaggerated, recommending further evaluation. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding disputes regarding video admissibility require resolution at the trial level. The matter is returned for the WCJ to determine video admissibility and decide on further medical evaluations.

RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorSurveillance VideoExaggerated DisabilityNeuropsychological EvaluationUnfair DecisionAdmissible EvidenceEvidentiary RulingsReconsiderationTrial Level Proceedings
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2004

Ulloa v. Universal Music and Video Distribution Corp.

Plaintiff Demme Ulloa initiated legal action against Universal Music and Video Distribution Corp., Island Def Jam Music Group, Roc-A-Fella Records, LLC, and Shawn Carter, alleging copyright infringement, false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, unjust enrichment, joint authorship, and an accounting of sales. Ulloa claimed to have spontaneously created a vocal counter-melody for Shawn Carter's song "Izzo (H.O.V.A.)" which was later used without proper credit or compensation. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the claims of joint authorship and Lanham Act violations, dismissing them. However, it denied both parties' motions for summary judgment regarding copyright infringement, citing unresolved factual disputes concerning originality, work-for-hire status, and implied license. Additionally, the defendants' motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim and to bifurcate the trial were denied.

Copyright InfringementLanham ActUnjust EnrichmentJoint AuthorshipSummary JudgmentWork for HireImplied LicenseMusical CompositionSound RecordingOriginality
References
31
Case No. ADJ1479326 (ANA 0411799) ADJ7233578
Regular
Oct 07, 2014

JONATHAN DUONG vs. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board overturned a WCJ's decision to exclude sub rosa surveillance video. The Board found no legal basis for excluding the video obtained in a mobile home park parking lot and a grocery store, as the applicant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in those public areas. The Board determined that the defendant would suffer significant prejudice from the exclusion, justifying removal of the case. Therefore, the sub rosa video was ruled admissible and may be provided to medical evaluators.

Sub rosa videoremovalreconsiderationadmissibilityinvasion of privacyreasonable expectation of privacycivil liabilityworkers' compensation fraudmedical-legal evaluatorworkers' compensation appeals board
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maliqi v. 17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc.

The court addresses motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence related to the plaintiff's immigration status, future lost wages, and medical expenses in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff, an undocumented political asylum seeker named Maliqi, was injured while working. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant for the jury to consider potential economic realities if he is deported, it cannot be used to argue that his status prohibits awards for future lost wages or medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendant is precluded from asserting that the plaintiff was working illegally at the time of the accident. The court also permitted expert testimony from an economist regarding future damages but denied the admission of testimony from the plaintiff's immigration counsel as an expert.

Workplace InjuryUndocumented WorkerPolitical AsylumImmigration StatusLost WagesMedical ExpensesEvidence AdmissibilityMotions in LimineExpert TestimonyEconomic Damages
References
13
Case No. ADJ9070509
Regular
Jan 05, 2018

GIHAN MOSAAD vs. WALMART STORES, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case concerns the admissibility of store surveillance video footage from the applicant's date of injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, an extraordinary remedy, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board agreed with the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a future decision proves adverse. The WCJ determined the video was relevant to the nature, extent, and apportionment of the applicant's injury, noting it shows the applicant using a cane and stocking shelves before being removed on a stretcher. The Board concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate that removal was necessary before a final decision.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdmissibility of VideoStore Surveillance VideoDate of InjuryWorkers' Compensation JudgeFindings & Order
References
2
Case No. ADJ1850137
Regular
Aug 14, 2012

CARMEN GARCIA vs. MISSION HOSPITAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, SEDGWICK CMS

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the judge's decision that found no permanent disability. The applicant argued the judge improperly relied on Dr. Cook's medical reports, which she claimed lacked substantial evidence and admissibility. However, the Board adopted the judge's report, emphasizing the weight given to credibility findings and noting that Dr. Cook's reports were supported by other physicians' findings and subrosa video evidence. This video demonstrably challenged the applicant's claims of limitations, contradicting her testimony about needing wrist supports for routine activities.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMission Hospital Regional Medical CenterSedgwick CMSReconsiderationLabor Code section 5313Smales v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.CredibilitySupplemental PetitionSummary of Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 1987

Promovision Video Display Corp. v. Intech Leasing Corp.

This case concerns an appeal where Promovision Video Display Corporation sued Intech Leasing Corporation for breach of contract and fraud. The dispute arose from a series of integrated agreements, including a sales agreement with an arbitration clause between Promovision and Fujitsu Systems of America, Inc., and a financing agreement between Promovision and Intech. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially denied Intech's motion to compel arbitration and granted Promovision's cross-motion to stay arbitration. The appellate court reversed this order, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act applied and that the arbitration clause, incorporated by reference into the financing agreement, governed the claims between Promovision and Intech. Consequently, the parties were directed to proceed to arbitration, and the action was stayed.

ArbitrationBreach of ContractFederal Arbitration ActIntegrated ContractsAssignmentFinancing AgreementSales AgreementMotion to Compel ArbitrationStay of ActionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. ADJ7253570
Regular
May 20, 2015

MICHELLE FELDHAKE vs. HOLLYWOOD VIDEO, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant, Michelle Feldhake, and defendants Hollywood Video and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The defendants petitioned for removal of an order that closed discovery and set the case for trial, arguing it would cause irreparable harm by preventing them from obtaining vocational evidence. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the order, and returned the case to the trial level due to ambiguity regarding the timing of the applicant's vocational expert's report. This action allows defendants to potentially obtain and present their own vocational evidence.

Petition for RemovalDiminished Future Earning CapacityVocational ExpertClosing DiscoveryDue ProcessIrreparable HarmVocational EvidenceMandatory Settlement ConferenceFindings Award and OrderHome Healthcare
References
2
Case No. 10 Civ. 0699
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. City of New York

This Opinion & Order by District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin addresses the admissibility of 'decline to prosecute' (DP) forms in a class action against the City of New York. Plaintiffs sought to use these forms as evidence of the NYPD's alleged unconstitutional trespass stops and arrests in NYCHA buildings for class certification and trial. The City argued against their admission as hearsay and legal conclusions. The Court ruled the DP forms admissible, primarily under the business records exception (Rule 803(6)), and found arresting officers' statements admissible as party-opponent admissions. The decision emphasized the forms' probative value and the lack of alternative evidence, despite concerns about implied legal conclusions, given the unique context of a class action challenging systemic practices.

Admissibility of EvidenceHearsay ExceptionBusiness RecordsPolice PracticesTrespass ArrestsNYCHA BuildingsClass ActionFederal Rules of EvidenceProbable CauseLegal Conclusions
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 783 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