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

Scheidt v. Oberg

This case is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to the defendants in a dog bite incident. The plaintiff sued after being bitten by the defendants' dog, Ziggy. To recover, the plaintiff needed to prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owners knew or should have known of them. The defendants presented evidence of no prior aggressive behavior or complaints. While the plaintiff described Ziggy barking, growling, and eventually biting him, he failed to provide evidence of the dog's known prior aggressive behavior or the owners' knowledge. A witness also testified to aggressive behavior but admitted not reporting it to the owners. The Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment to the defendants was affirmed due to the plaintiff's failure to meet the burden of proof regarding the dog's vicious propensities and the owners' knowledge.

Dog biteAnimal attackVicious propensitiesOwner knowledgeSummary judgmentAppellate reviewBurden of proofPrior aggressive behaviorSaratoga CountyCourt of Appeals
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04441 [196 AD3d 1141]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2021

Knaszak v. Hamburg Cent. Sch. Dist.

Plaintiff Carly Knaszak sued Hamburg Central School District for negligent supervision after being sexually assaulted by another student on school grounds. The Supreme Court denied the school's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed the lower court's decision, granted summary judgment to the defendant, and dismissed the complaint. The court found that the school lacked sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the offending student's propensity for sexual aggression, despite a troubled disciplinary history that did not include prior physically or sexually aggressive acts.

Negligent SupervisionSchool LiabilitySexual AssaultSummary JudgmentForeseeabilityStudent Disciplinary HistoryAppellate ReviewDuty of CareProximate CauseStudent Safety
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 1986

People v. Rivera

The defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of first-degree manslaughter, arguing two trial court errors. The appellate court found that a jury charge on justification, including defense of third persons, should have been given due to the deceased's aggressive conduct towards the defendant and his family. Additionally, the trial court improperly denied the defense access to the deceased's psychiatric records, which revealed a history of mental illness, drug addiction, and violent behavior, crucial for the defense's arguments on initial aggression and retreat safety. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

ManslaughterJustification DefenseSelf-defenseDefense of Third PersonsPsychiatric RecordsBrady MaterialEvidentiary ErrorAppellate ReviewNew TrialCriminal Law
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02058 [203 AD3d 597]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2022

Matter of Kyng F. (Kareem F.)

The Family Court denied the respondent father's motions under Family Court Act §§ 1028 and 1061 to have the subject child released to him or for unsupervised visitation. The court found a sound and substantial basis in the record that the child would face imminent risk of harm if returned to the father's care, citing domestic violence against the nonrespondent mother in the child's presence and the father's aggressive and uncooperative behavior during supervised visits and dealings with the agency. Despite mental health treatment, the father refused anger management referrals and lacked insight. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that the father continued to act aggressively during supervised visits and did not show good cause for modifying the release order to allow unsupervised visits.

Child ProtectionParental RightsDomestic ViolenceChild NeglectVisitation RightsFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewImminent HarmMental HealthAnger Management
References
4
Case No. ADJ4513629 (SAL 0120784)
Regular
Feb 18, 2010

RICHARD GALINDO vs. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC.; BROADSPIRE, a CRAWFORD COMPANY

This case concerns a bus driver who sustained a back injury after an altercation with a passenger. The employer denied the claim, asserting the employee was the initial physical aggressor, which would bar compensation. The Board reviewed videotape evidence and affirmed the WCJ's finding that the passenger's spitting and verbal threats constituted the initial physical aggression. Therefore, the employer failed to establish the exclusion under Labor Code section 3600(a)(7), and the injury is compensable.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRECONSIDERATIONINDUSTRIAL INJURYBUS DRIVERCOMPENSABILITYINITIAL PHYSICAL AGGRESSORLABOR CODE SECTION 3600(a)(7)ALTERCATIONVIDEOTAPE EVIDENCETHREAT OF BODILY HARM
References
2
Case No. ADJ1294835
Regular
Apr 17, 2013

VALERIE LUGO vs. YOLO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SERVICES

This case involves Valerie Lugo alleging a work injury from an altercation with a coworker, Aikiko. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied her petition for reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found no industrial injury. The WCJ discredited Lugo's testimony based on inconsistencies and a coworker's statement portraying her as aggressive. Medical examination by Dr. Forsyth shortly after the alleged injury revealed no evidence of trauma. The WCJ concluded that an employment event was not predominant in causing any alleged psychiatric injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeCredibility FindingIndustrial InjuryHuman Resources AssistantLeft Shoulder InjuryLeft Breast InjuryUpper Back InjuryPsyche Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ15544152
Regular
May 02, 2025

TALIBAH COFFEE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SEDGWICK

Applicant, Talibah Coffee, sought reconsideration of a finding that her claimed industrial injury was non-compensable due to her being the initial physical aggressor in an altercation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the applicant's petition, the defendant's answer, and the WCJ's report. The Board concurred with the WCJ's analysis, which found that the applicant's act of physically touching and moving a cameraman's equipment constituted the initial physical aggression, thereby barring compensation under Labor Code section 3600(a)(7). Consequently, the Petition for Reconsideration was denied.

Initial physical aggressorLabor Code section 3600(a)(7)Deputy Probation Officer IIaltercationphysical conductreal and present threat of bodily harmPetition for ReconsiderationWCJReport and Recommendationinjury AOE/COE
References
3
Case No. ADJ7676148
Regular
Oct 17, 2013

CAMERON PRATT vs. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Sheriff Department's Petition for Reconsideration regarding a Deputy Sheriff's Hodgkin's Lymphoma claim. The WCJ found the applicant established a prima facie case for a work-related cancer injury under Labor Code section 3212.1. The defendant failed to rebut the presumption of injury with substantial medical evidence, specifically regarding the latency period and a reasonable link between carcinogen exposure and the applicant's aggressive cancer. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and reasoning in its denial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedDeputy SheriffContinuous TraumaCancerHodgkin's LymphomaArising Out of and Occurring in the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)Rebutting the PresumptionLabor Code section 3212.1
References
2
Case No. ADJ4386714 (RIV 0021250)
Regular
Apr 04, 2011

Clifford Carlson vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Clifford Carlson's petition for reconsideration of a decision that found the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) complied with a prior award and was not liable for penalties. Carlson had alleged the MTA failed to make timely disability payments, sought over 100 penalties, and claimed the judge's findings were fraudulent and unsupported by evidence. The Board also denied the MTA's petition for sanctions against Carlson, finding his conduct, though arguably aggressive, did not rise to the level of bad faith as defined by statute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClifford CarlsonLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transit AuthorityPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderPenaltiesLabor Code section 4650Timely Disability PaymentsCredit for Permanent Disability PaymentsSanctions
References
0
Case No. ADJ9773810
Regular
Oct 25, 2017

Michele Ligouri vs. CITY OF CONCORD, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

This case involves a police officer's claim for workers' compensation benefits for breast cancer. The applicant was entitled to a legal presumption that her cancer was industrially caused. The defendant argued the presumption was rebutted because the latency period for her cancer exceeded her period of employment, based on a QME's opinion. However, the Appeals Board found the QME's opinion did not definitively rule out a shorter latency period for the applicant's aggressive cancer, thus failing to rebut the presumption. The Board granted reconsideration, amended the findings to include the presumption, and returned the case for further proceedings.

Labor Code section 3212.1presumptionindustrial cumulative trauma injurybreast cancerlatency periodQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)rebuttedmedical probabilityaggressive form of cancercarcinogens
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 38 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