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. ADJ9746778
Regular
Apr 18, 2017

Alicia Gil vs. LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration regarding Alicia Gil's industrial injury claim. The Board affirmed the finding of temporary total disability but increased the weekly temporary disability indemnity rate. This adjustment was based on applicant's demonstrated earning capacity through post-injury wage increases received while on modified duty, rather than solely her earnings at the date of injury. The Board also ordered clerical amendments to the Findings and Award to correctly identify disputed body parts and parties.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLoma Linda University Medical CenterAlicia GilReconsiderationFindings and AwardClinical Nurse-RNTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent and Stationary StatusAverage Weekly EarningsEarning Capacity
References
7
Case No. 2019-03475; Docket Nos. B-762-18, B-763-18, B-764-18, B-765-18
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2020

Matter of Margaret K.K. (Alicia A.)

Alicia A. (mother) appealed the Family Court of Rockland County's order terminating her parental rights to her four children due to mental illness. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal concerning two children (William K. and Margaret K. K.) as academic because they had reached the age of majority. For the remaining children, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding clear and convincing evidence that the mother's mental illnesses (bipolar disorder, ADHD, and PTSD) rendered her unable to provide proper care. The court also determined that the mother received effective assistance of counsel, despite counsel not attending a court-ordered psychological examination, given counsel's detailed cross-examination of the evaluator and securing an independent psychiatric evaluation. The decision upheld the termination of parental rights for the children still under the court's jurisdiction.

Parental Rights TerminationMental Illness GroundIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate ReviewSocial Services Law § 384-bFamily Court ActChild NeglectBipolar DisorderPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderAttention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2010

In re Alicia G.

The case concerns a petition for permanent neglect filed by Heartshare Human Services against Hanna Muhammad and Al G., the incarcerated parents of Alicia. The court examined whether the agency made diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship and if the parents adequately planned for Alicia's future, considering their incarceration. The petition against the mother, Hanna Muhammad, was dismissed as the agency failed to convincingly prove a lack of planning or cooperation. However, the petition against the father, Al G., was granted due to his failure to plan, with his disposition adjourned to a later date. The decision highlights the nuanced application of Social Services Law § 384-b for incarcerated parents.

Permanent NeglectIncarcerated ParentsSocial Services LawParental Rights TerminationDiligent EffortsParental PlanningFoster CareChild WelfareNew York Family LawChild Best Interests
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2010

Briggs v. Women in Need, Inc.

Alicia Briggs, a pro se plaintiff, sued Women in Need, Inc. (WIN) for alleged violations of Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, claiming unlawful termination due to her pregnancy and related medical conditions. Briggs went on medical leave for a high-risk pregnancy, gave birth via C-section, and was later informed she was terminated after requesting a specific shift upon her return. WIN moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing Briggs refused her assigned schedule. The Court denied WIN's motion, finding Briggs had plausibly alleged a prima facie case of discrimination, citing the close temporal proximity between her pregnancy and termination, and her qualifications for the role. The matter was recommitted to the assigned magistrate judge for supervision of discovery and pre-trial matters.

Pregnancy DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIWrongful TerminationMotion to DismissPrima Facie CaseCivil Rights ActFederal Civil ProcedureJudicial ReviewHigh-Risk Pregnancy
References
45
Case No. ADJ2409827 (VNO 0509989)
Regular
Apr 17, 2014

ALICIA EVANS vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its prior decision concerning Alicia Evans and Southern California Gas Company. While the lien claimant's petition touched upon sanctions, it failed to meet the procedural requirements for reconsideration under Labor Code sections 5902 and 5904, and WCAB Rules 10842, 10846, and 10852. Specifically, the petition lacked detailed grounds, specific record references, and legal arguments, instead presenting a conclusory assertion that the facts mandated a win. Consequently, the Board adopted the judge's report and denied the petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561bad faithfrivolous conductlien claimantsanctionsLab. Code§ 5902
References
7
Case No. VNO 0467830
Regular
Mar 14, 2008

ALICIA RODRIGUEZ vs. ARAMARK, LUMBERMAN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Alicia Rodriguez's Petition for Reconsideration in case VNO 0467830. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed. Specifically, the filing did not adhere to the 20-day statutory deadline (plus 5 days for mailing) for reconsideration petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWCAB Rule 10840Labor Code § 5903Code of Civil Procedure §1013Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)DismissedLumberman's Mutual Casualty CompanySpecialty Risk ServicesAlicia Rodriguez
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2002

Sharp v. Scandic Wall Ltd. Partnership

Gil Sharp, an elevator mechanic, sustained injuries on October 31, 1996, when an elevator car he was working on at 40 Wall Street fell 30 feet after he mistakenly cut supporting cables. He sued the premises owner, 40 Wall Street Development Associates, alleging violations of various Labor Law sections and OSHA regulations. The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss all claims, while Sharp cross-moved for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241-a, and to amend his bill of particulars. The court dismissed claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 241-a, 241 (6), and OSHA regulations. However, Sharp was granted summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), with the court finding the defendant liable for failing to provide adequate safety devices.

Elevator accidentPersonal injuryLabor Law § 240(1)Summary judgmentIndustrial CodeWorkplace safetyGravity-related hazardConstruction site accidentFall from heightOwner liability
References
5
Case No. ADJ1421024 (AHM 0105331) ADJ3172700 (AHM 0130888)
Regular

ALICIA URBANO vs. EMPLOYERS RESOURCE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This order denies Alicia Urbano's Petition for Reconsideration in her workers' compensation case against Employers Resource and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) adopted the findings and reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therefore, the WCAB has concluded that reconsideration of its previous decision is not warranted. The petition for reconsideration is formally denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportDeny ReconsiderationADJ1421024ADJ3172700Alicia UrbanoEmployers ResourceLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanyAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ10884813
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

ALICIA RODRIGUEZ vs. DYNAMIC EDGE CONSULTING, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

Alicia Rodriguez, applicant, suffered a brain injury during employment with Dynamic Edge Consulting, insured by Travelers Property Casualty Company of America. The initial WCJ decision found the defendant liable for 24-hour home health care due to a failure in timely utilization review of Dr. Roger Bertoldi's prescription, which incorporated Sue Coleman's evaluation. Defendant petitioned for reconsideration, arguing the prescription was non-compliant and their duty was investigative, not to submit to UR. The Appeals Board granted the petition, deferring a final decision for further review and encouraging mediation.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardDynamic Edge ConsultingTravelers Property Casualty Company of AmericaPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAOE/COEBrain Injury24-Hour Home Health CareUtilization ReviewDr. Roger Bertoldi
References
27
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04783 [151 AD3d 521]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2017

Kearney v. Capelli Enterprises

The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning Alicia Kearney's personal injury lawsuit against Capelli Enterprises and George A. Fuller Company, Inc. The Supreme Court had granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against both defendants. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Capelli, concluding it had no involvement in the construction project or the dangerous condition, and Kearney had signed a release. However, the appellate court modified the order by denying summary judgment to Fuller. Fuller failed to demonstrate it owed no duty of care, did not create the hazardous condition, that the reported four-inch concrete mound in dim lighting was a trivial defect, or that a Workers' Compensation defense was applicable, noting issues with the clarity of the release and the "alter ego" argument.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentDuty of CareRelease of ClaimsWorkers' Compensation DefenseTrivial DefectCorporate VeilAppellate ReviewTort Claims
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 48 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