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. ADJ6836483
Regular
Nov 16, 2009

ZACHARY STEPHENSON vs. ATHERTON APPLIANCE & KITCHENS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Petition for Reconsideration is denied based on the WCJ's report, which is adopted and incorporated. The WCJ's credibility finding is given significant weight.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardInjury AOE-COECredibility of WitnessEmployee Report of InjuryAdmissibility of EvidenceDue ProcessWCJ ReportSubstantial EvidenceMechanism of Injury
References
1
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05259 [231 AD3d 1394]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2024

Matter of Germano v. Dynamic Appliances, Inc.

Victor Germano, the claimant, appealed an amended decision by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for a right arm injury sustained in 2019. Germano had a prior SLU award for a 2015 right shoulder injury. The Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision, which granted the State Insurance Fund credit for prior payments, reasoning that Germano failed to show his 33.33% SLU of the right arm was solely attributable to the 2019 injury. However, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision. Citing Matter of Johnson v City of New York, the Court found that Germano's treating physician had clearly distinguished the 2019 biceps injury's 33.33% SLU as separate from, and in addition to, the prior shoulder injury, thereby making an offset inappropriate. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's finding.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Arm InjuryPrior Injury CreditMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Biceps Tendon InjuryShoulder InjuryOffsets
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sirota v. Welbilt Appliance, Inc.

Plaintiff Lee Sirota initiated an action against his former employer, Welbilt Appliance, Inc., alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York’s Human Rights Law (HRL). Sirota, who was 55 when hired and 58 when terminated, claimed he was replaced by a younger employee and that the company had a pattern of discharging older employees post a leveraged buy-out. Welbilt moved to dismiss the HRL claim, strike demands for compensatory/punitive damages under ADEA, punitive damages under HRL, and attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as well as certain allegations. While Sirota conceded on some damages and fees, he cross-moved to amend his complaint and opposed the dismissal of the HRL claim and the striking of specific allegations. The court denied the dismissal of the HRL claim, granted leave for Sirota to file an amended complaint, and partially granted and denied Welbilt's motion to strike, notably allowing allegations of a pattern of discrimination to remain.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawADEA ClaimHuman Rights LawSupplemental JurisdictionMotion to DismissMotion to StrikeCompensatory DamagesPunitive DamagesAttorney Fees
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2004

Feldman v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

The plaintiff, a production manager for Pure Tech APR, sustained personal injuries in 2001 after falling from a railcar while performing an inspection. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit against General Electric Railcar Services Corporation (GE Rail), CSX Transportation, Inc., New York & Atlantic Railway Company (NYARC), and Trinity Industries, Inc., alleging strict products liability, negligence under federal safety acts, and Labor Law violations. GE Rail subsequently filed a third-party claim against Pure Tech for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, citing preemption by the Federal Safety Appliance Act (SAA) and Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), and granted GE Rail's indemnification claim. The appellate court affirmed this decision, reinforcing that federal law preempts state-level product liability claims concerning railcar safety appliances and that the railcar's design complied with federal regulations, also upholding the contractual indemnification.

Personal InjuryRailcar SafetyFederal PreemptionSafety Appliance Act (SAA)Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA)Strict Products LiabilityNegligenceContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guarino v. Mine Safety Appliance Co.

This judicial concurrence discusses the limited applicability of the "danger invites rescue" doctrine in breach of warranty cases, arguing against its general application due to concerns of unjustified liability for manufacturers. The opinion emphasizes the importance of maintaining distinctions between breach of warranty and negligence liability, citing a warning against limitless liability without fault from Caruth v. Mariani. The judges concur in result only, advocating for a cautious approach to expanding liability theories.

Danger invites rescue doctrineBreach of warrantyNegligence liabilityProduct liabilityJudicial interpretationConcurring opinionLiability without faultSocial justice in lawJudicial restraintCourt of Appeals
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Seymour v. Rivera Appliances Corp.

The decedent intervened in a workplace argument between coemployees Carmelo Cordero and Irma Rodriguez to assist Rodriguez, leading to a physical altercation. After a second fight outside the premises, Cordero and Rodriguez returned the next day and fatally shot the decedent. The Workmen's Compensation Board found the injury arose from employment, a decision the Appellate Division rejected. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, concluding that the decedent's intervention was work-related, establishing a nexus between the assault and employment. The court also determined that the decedent's pursuit of the coemployees outside and the 24-hour interval before the shooting did not necessarily break the employment relationship, thereby reinstating the board's award.

Assault at workWorkers' CompensationScope of EmploymentInterventionCoemployee disputeAccidental injuryCausationCooling-off periodAppellate reviewBoard findings
References
8
Case No. ADJ4430362
Regular
Apr 02, 2013

JOSE GOMEZ vs. ST APPLIANCE SERVICE, INC.

This case involves Jose Gomez's workers' compensation claim for spinal and psychological injuries sustained on April 12, 2006. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the WCJ's decision. The denial was based on the WCJ's finding that the applicant's testimony was not credible, as the described events were factually impossible. Furthermore, the petition for reconsideration was procedurally deficient due to improper verification and lack of record citations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility FindingVerificationCalifornia Code of RegulationsInjury AOE/COEWillfully UninsuredSpine InjuryPsyche Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Norton v. Albany Appliance Dist., Inc.

Claimant sustained a back injury in a 1973 auto collision and settled a third-party action in 1976 without the employer's or carrier's consent. Initially, the Workers' Compensation Board (WCAB) closed the case due to this lack of consent. Claimant later obtained a nunc pro tunc order from the Supreme Court in Albany County, retroactively approving the settlement under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). Despite this, an Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the WCAB found the Supreme Court order not binding, affirming the case closure. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the nunc pro tunc order legally removed the necessity for consent as of the settlement date, and the Board erred by not recognizing its effect, remitting the case for further proceedings.

Third-party settlementNunc pro tunc orderConsentStatutory interpretationAppellate reviewRemittalJurisdictionRetroactive effectLegal effectProcedural error
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 1982

Claim of Bauman v. Chili Furniture & Appliances, Inc.

This case involves an appeal that reversed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which had discharged the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from liability. The claimant, who suffered the loss of a leg in a 1964 work-related accident, required recurring replacement of his prosthetic device, with medical reports from 1976 and 1978 also indicating an abscess and pressure area on his stump. The Board reopened the case based on these reports, concluding they signified a "change in condition" within three years of the last compensation payment, thereby exempting the Special Fund. However, the Appellate Division determined that the need for prosthesis replacement is a continuing requirement and not a new medical condition for the purposes of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The court further found that the medical reports did not clearly indicate a new or changed condition beyond the claimant's continuing disability. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed for lacking a rational basis, and the matter was remitted for additional proceedings.

Prosthetic Device ReplacementWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened Cases LiabilityChange in ConditionMedical Report InterpretationNotice to BoardContinuing DisabilityAppellate DivisionRemittalAbscess on Stump
References
6
Case No. SJO 181617 SJO 181469 SJO 187564 SJO 187565
Regular
Sep 17, 2007

ANITA BLICK vs. TOWN OF ATHERTON, CITIES INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award because the applicant's criminal conviction, which was the basis for restitution, had been vacated. The Board determined that restitution claims are intrinsically linked to the vocational rehabilitation benefits claim. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for a new WCJ to decide both issues after the applicant's criminal proceedings are finally resolved.

Vocational RehabilitationVRMARestitutionPenal Code section 550(b)(3)FraudCriminal ConvictionVacated ConvictionReconsiderationAppeals BoardWCJ
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 30 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