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. ADJ11298225
Regular
Jul 26, 2018

MARK ALLAN vs. SCARD TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves Mark Allan's petition for reconsideration and removal, which the Appeals Board dismissed and denied. The Board found that the Administrative Law Judge's decision addressed only evidentiary issues, not a "final" substantive right or threshold matter, rendering it unappealable via reconsideration. Furthermore, the Board determined that Allan failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant the extraordinary remedy of removal. Finally, the Board admonished the defendants and their attorney for failing to comply with board rules, warning of potential sanctions.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07587 [176 AD3d 1069]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2019

Matter of Rosenberg v. Schwartz

The case involves Eric Rosenberg and Allan Schwartz, who were 50% owners of Blind Builders USA, Inc. They agreed to arbitrate their claims to the company's assets before a rabbinical arbitration tribunal, which issued an award including the distribution of accounts receivable. Rosenberg sought to confirm the award, while Schwartz moved to vacate it, arguing it was indefinite regarding the accounts receivable distribution. The Supreme Court confirmed the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division dismissed appeals from prior orders and an earlier judgment. It modified the December 23, 2016, judgment, finding the arbitration award indefinite as it did not clearly define how the accounts receivable incurred prior to the award date were to be distributed. Consequently, that portion of the award was vacated, and the matter was remitted to the rabbinical arbitration tribunal for further proceedings on that specific issue.

Arbitration AwardCPLR Article 75Vacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardAccounts ReceivableBusiness DisputePartnership DisputeRabbinical Arbitration TribunalIndefinite AwardNonfinal Award
References
10
Case No. ADJ7527243
Regular
Oct 27, 2011

LEANNE FIORENTINO vs. ALLAN HANCOCK COLLEGE, WORKERS' COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATORS

This case concerns a penalty assessed against Allan Hancock College for allegedly unreasonably delaying temporary disability payments to applicant Leanne Fiorentino. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the original finding. The Board determined that the delay was not unreasonable, as the college was incorporating the applicant's temporary disability benefits into her regular paycheck, which involved necessary calculations and adherence to payroll cut-off dates. Therefore, the penalty was denied.

Allan Hancock Collegesalary continuation planLabor Code section 5814temporary disability benefitsunreasonable delaypenaltyFindings and Awardcumulative trauma injurypsycheWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
7
Case No. ADJ6939085
Regular
May 09, 2014

APACELY HERNANDEZ vs. ALLAN AIRCRAFT SUPPLY COMPANY, MARKEL SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed petitions for reconsideration filed by Allan Aircraft Supply Company and Markel Services. The WCAB held that reconsideration can only be granted for final orders, not interlocutory procedural orders. Pre-trial orders concerning evidence, discovery, trial setting, or venue do not determine substantive rights and are therefore not subject to reconsideration. This dismissal aligns with established precedent defining final orders as those that determine substantive rights or liabilities.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetitions for ReconsiderationDismissalInterlocutory OrdersFinal OrdersSubstantive RightsLiabilityPre-trial OrdersDiscoveryVenue
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01876 [181 AD3d 1126]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Markey v. Autosaver Ford

Austin Allan Markey, a general manager for Autosaver Ford, was injured in a work-related fall on December 1, 2015. After informing his supervisor on December 15, 2015, that he intended to file a workers' compensation claim due to requiring surgery for a shoulder tear, he was terminated on December 17, 2015. Markey subsequently filed a discrimination claim against Autosaver Ford under Workers' Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found in favor of Markey, concluding that the employer retaliated against him and failed to provide a valid business reason for the discharge. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Markey's employment was terminated in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 120.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimDiscriminationEmployer MisconductSubstantial EvidenceCausal NexusWitness CredibilityAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law Section 120Job Performance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 1994

Wilbur O. v. Christina P.

This case involves appeals from Family Court orders granting Wilbur O. sole legal custody of his children, William and Jessica O., and adjudicating them as neglected by their mother, Christina P., and stepfather, Allan P. Following their divorce, Christina P. and Allan P., active Jehovah\'s Witnesses, raised the children and began discarding items from Wilbur\'s visits, believing them to be demon-possessed. Christina P. was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder and experienced flashbacks of alleged satanic ritualistic abuse, eventually implicating Wilbur. The parents unilaterally terminated Wilbur\'s visitation, leading to the children\'s severe depression. The children, influenced by their parents, began recounting detailed, uncorroborated "memories" of satanic abuse by Wilbur. After intervention by the Department of Social Services (DSS), the children recanted their allegations, attributing them to suggestions from Christina P. and Allan P. A court-ordered psychological report diagnosed Christina P. with a possible psychotic disorder and described a "Folie á Deux" shared delusion with the children. The appeals court affirmed the Family Court\'s findings of neglect and the change of custody to Wilbur O., concluding that the children\'s mental and emotional health was impaired by Christina P. and Allan P.\'s conduct.

Child Custody DisputeChild NeglectParental AlienationFalse Allegations of AbuseSatanic Ritual Abuse AllegationsPosttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)Shared Delusion (Folie á Deux)Family Court ActAppellate DecisionPsychological Evaluation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roebuck v. Guttman

Plaintiffs alleged that they were defrauded by defendants in the purchase of limited partnership units in Visual Enterprises. Defendants Martin L. Goldstein, Martin A. Halpern, Goldstein & Halpern, Allan T. Cannon, and Allan T. Cannon, P.C. moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, arguing a failure to state fraud with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). The court found that plaintiffs did not allege facts supporting an inference that the G & H and Cannon defendants knowingly participated in the fraudulent misstatements or omissions. Additionally, the court determined that claims under section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 were time-barred. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint and directed the entry of a final judgment, certifying it for immediate appeal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) to promote judicial economy.

FraudSecurities FraudLimited PartnershipMotion to DismissRule 9(b)Rule 54(b) CertificationStatute of LimitationsPendent JurisdictionCivil ProcedureMisrepresentation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allan v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Structural Preservation Systems (SPS), was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold while performing structural repairs in a building owned by 500 Lincoln, LLC and leased by DHL Express (USA), Inc. The plaintiff commenced an action against both entities, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) against 500 Lincoln and denied DHL's motions for summary judgment to dismiss various claims against it. On appeal, the court modified the Supreme Court's decision, determining that DHL should have been granted summary judgment dismissing all Labor Law and common-law negligence claims against it, as DHL neither directed nor controlled the work. The court also found that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) against 500 Lincoln should have been denied due to triable issues of fact regarding proximate cause and the availability of adequate safety devices.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentScaffold FallSummary JudgmentLiabilityIndemnificationProximate CauseSafe Place to WorkOwner LiabilityLessee Liability
References
29
Case No. GRO 0023699
Significant
Aug 08, 2003

Clarence A. Pebworth vs. Allan Hancock College, Workers’ Compensation Administrators

The Appeals Board holds that amendments to Labor Code section 4646, permitting settlement of prospective vocational rehabilitation, are substantive and do not apply retroactively to injuries occurring before the January 1, 2003 effective date.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDEN BANCCLARENCE A. PEBWORTHALLAN HANCOCK COLLEGEVOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICESLABOR CODE SECTION 4646DATE OF INJURYRETROSPECTIVE APPLICATIONSUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTPROCEDURAL AMENDMENT
References
36
Case No. GRO 0023699
En Banc
Aug 08, 2003

Clarence A. Pebworth vs. Allan Hancock College, Workers' Compensation Administrators

The Appeals Board held that amendments to Labor Code section 4646, permitting settlement of prospective vocational rehabilitation services, are substantive and not procedural. Therefore, they cannot be applied retrospectively to injuries sustained before the amendment's effective date of January 1, 2003, absent clear legislative intent to the contrary.

Labor Code section 4646vocational rehabilitation servicesdate of injuryretrospective applicationsubstantive amendmentsprocedural statuteslegislative intenten banc decisioncompromise and releaseRehabilitation Unit
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 21 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