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

In re Marcario

A child protective services worker from the Suffolk County Department of Social Services sought a court order under Family Court Act section 1034 to search premises believed to house an abused child. The application stemmed from a hotline report alleging abuse by Joseph Marcario, which he and his wife denied, refusing to cooperate with the investigation. The court denied the application, finding the supporting affidavit, based on double hearsay from an unnamed and unreliable informant, lacked the probable cause required for a search warrant under the CPL and Fourth Amendment. The court emphasized the importance of due process for alleged perpetrators and also criticized the over 90-day delay in filing the application after the initial report.

Child Protective ServicesFamily Court ActSearch Warrant ApplicationProbable CauseHearsay EvidenceAguilar TestDue ProcessFourth AmendmentChild Abuse InvestigationSuffolk County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Viviano v. Allard

This case involves a postjudgment application for equitable distribution of a class action settlement by a former wife against her former husband. The parties were divorced in 1984, with all known marital property having been distributed. The husband became a member of a class action lawsuit against Continental Can Company, where his employment was terminated prior to the divorce, leading to a substantial monetary settlement in 1990. The wife, learning of this settlement in 1992, filed for equitable distribution, arguing the proceeds constituted marital property. The Supreme Court ordered a hearing, finding that the settlement proceeds, if known at the time of divorce, would have been considered marital property. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing unusual circumstances where an asset was unknown to both parties at the time of the divorce, thereby justifying an opportunity for the wife to litigate the issue. The court held that benefits earned during the marriage, even if realized post-divorce, could be subject to equitable distribution.

Divorce LawEquitable DistributionMarital PropertyClass Action SettlementPostjudgment ReliefRes Judicata ExceptionAppellate ReviewUnforeseen AssetsDeferred CompensationFamily Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Oliva v. Albany Cycle Co.

This case concerns a claimant's appeal from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 6, 1977, and June 29, 1978, which had denied his application to reopen and reconsider a referee’s decision from March 25, 1976. The referee had previously denied the claimant’s claim for death benefits for his deceased wife, stating that he failed to establish dependency as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 16. The claimant sought reopening after Matter of Passante v Walden Print. Co. declared section 16 unconstitutional for its gender-based dependency requirements. However, the Board rejected the application due to an untimely appeal. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion as Passante did not expressly mandate retroactive application.

Death BenefitsDependency RequirementConstitutional LawRetroactive ApplicationTimely AppealAbuse of DiscretionBoard ReconsiderationReferee's DecisionAppellate ReviewGender Discrimination
References
3
Case No. ADJ754138 (SDO 0358006)
Regular
Jul 13, 2012

IGNACIO GOMEZ vs. PREMIUM ROOF SERVICES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reconsidered a decision regarding an applicant injured while employed as a roofer. The applicant was awarded home healthcare services, but the initial judge found no authority to order payment to the applicant's wife. The Board granted reconsideration, finding that the applicant has the right to choose his home healthcare provider, especially given the inadequate services previously provided by the defendant's agency. Therefore, the Board amended the award to ensure the applicant receives the stipulated attendant care/housekeeping services from his wife.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPremium Roof ServicesInc.State Compensation Insurance FundIgnacio GomezFindings Award and Ordersrooferindustrial injurylow backstipulated award
References
4
Case No. ADJ1054155 (LAO 0854446) ADJ1247741 (LAO 0854447) ADJ1895803 (LAO 0854448)
Regular
May 03, 2011

HIRITI OKUAMICHAEL vs. PAUL OWENS SHOES INC., STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This amended order clarifies that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the February 8, 2011 Findings and Awards. This reconsideration aims to allow the Board to thoroughly study the factual and legal issues, including those to be raised in the applicant's supplemental petition. The applicant's request to file a supplemental petition has also been granted and reaffirmed. All future communications regarding these cases should be directed to the Office of the Commissioners of the WCAB.

Supplemental PetitionReconsiderationAppeals Board Rule 10848Findings and AwardsDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersWCABADJ1054155ADJ1247741ADJ1895803
References
0
Case No. ADJ9016733
Regular
May 03, 2016

TYSON CONGER vs. CARE AMBULANCE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior award concerning industrial injuries to his low back and psyche. The applicant argues the original findings did not properly weigh evidence and support a higher permanent disability rating. The Board also permitted the applicant to file a supplemental petition to address new information, allowing defendants an opportunity to respond. Reconsideration was granted to ensure a complete review of the record and a just decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionEmergency Medical TechnicianLow Back InjuryPsyche InjuryTemporary DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
1
Case No. ADJ8531754
Regular
Mar 11, 2019

ARTURO TRUJILLO vs. TIC THE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, THE HARTFORD INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's findings and orders, and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. This decision stemmed from a dispute over whether an Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) interview with the applicant's wife and the applicant's provision of medical records at the AME's deposition constituted impermissible ex parte communication. The WCAB found that the interview with the wife was permissible as a collateral source to supplement the applicant's potentially impaired memory due to a brain injury, and that the provision of records at the deposition was not ex parte as the defendant was present. However, the WCAB remanded the case for the WCJ to determine if the applicant improperly provided information to the AME, as parties must agree on what information is provided to an AME.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorEx Parte CommunicationPetition for RemovalMedical-Legal ReportingCollateral InterviewApplicant's WifeDepositionsMedical RecordsSubstantial EvidenceLabor Code Section 4062.3
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2013

Whitaker v. Case

This case involves cross appeals from a judgment in a divorce action concerning the equitable distribution of marital property, child custody, and child support. The Supreme Court initially granted divorce, distributed marital property, awarded the husband sole legal and physical custody, and suspended the wife's child support obligation. On appeal, the court affirmed some aspects, modified others, and reversed one part. Specifically, the court found certain bank accounts to contain marital funds, increased the wife's distributive share, recognized a credit for the wife's separate property used for a home construction, and adjusted the awards for other properties. The suspension of the wife's child support due to parental interference by the husband was upheld, as was the escrowing of payments, but the direct reimbursement for past child support payments was reversed. The court also upheld the denial of counsel fees to the wife but affirmed the award of costs.

DivorceEquitable DistributionMarital PropertyChild SupportChild CustodySeparate PropertyParental AlienationAppellate ReviewProperty DivisionAlimony
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Behan v. Behan

Justice Balletta concurs in part and dissents in part, advocating for a modification of the trial court's maintenance award to the wife. The trial court initially awarded the wife $150 per week for five years, while the majority proposed 10 years or until the husband's retirement. Justice Balletta argues for an eight-year maintenance period, citing the wife's age (46), high school education with some college, and five years of work experience as a school aide earning $11,000 annually. The husband, age 47, earned $55,000. The wife received approximately $250,000 in equitable distribution and a portion of the husband's pension. The opinion emphasizes the Equitable Distribution Law's goal of economic independence and self-sufficiency, suggesting an eight-year period is sufficient for the wife to gain further training and become financially independent, especially since her children are emancipated and she will have investment income.

maintenanceequitable distributiondivorcespousal supporteconomic independencemarital assetsduration of maintenancefinancial independenceself-supporting spouseappellate division
References
16
Case No. VNO 0438915
Regular
Oct 23, 2008

Applicant vs. University of Southern California

This case concerns an applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of a WCAB decision denying injury claims against the University of Southern California (USC). The applicant alleged a physical altercation with his supervisor, Mr. Pickering, during a meeting on September 20, 2001, which he claims caused various injuries. However, the WCJ found the applicant lacked credibility due to inconsistencies in his testimony and failure to report the incident promptly. The WCJ relied on testimony from witnesses who stated Mr. Pickering merely touched the applicant's shoulders and noted the applicant's history of prior injuries and medical issues not fully disclosed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationUniversity of Southern CaliforniaBiological Safety Specialistspecific injuryanimositycredibility issuesshoulder touchingprior injurieshypertension
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 13,486 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