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. 2023 NY Slip Op 02840 [216 AD3d 584]
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2023

Simpson v. Mackendrick

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order that awarded Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC, the plaintiff's prior counsel, $300 in attorney's fees for preliminary investigation, rejecting their claim for 40% of the net contingency fee. The court found this a provident exercise of discretion by the motion court. It distinguished Napoli's limited work, which involved initial investigation and some applications, from the substantial efforts of current counsel, Scott A. Wolinetz, P.C., who commenced the lawsuit, conducted discovery, and negotiated the final settlement in the underlying workers' compensation action.

Attorney's FeesContingency FeePrior CounselApportionment of FeesPreliminary InvestigationWorkers' Compensation ActionSettlement NegotiationJudicial DiscretionAppellate Division First DepartmentIntervenor-Appellant
References
2
Case No. LBO 0385963
Regular
Aug 05, 2008

Audley Simpson vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to rescind the trial judge's order, returning the case for further proceedings. The Board agreed that the spine was not an issue in dispute at the mandatory settlement conference or trial, and that the temporary disability award was likely based on this unaddressed body part. The case is remanded for the trial judge to address all disputed issues, including the use of an AME/QME and the admissibility of treating physician reports.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAudley SimpsonCounty of Los Angelesindustrial injuryspineleft hipleft thightemporary disabilityFindings Award and Orderspanel QME
References
0
Case No. ADJ1528926 (LBO 0378215)
Regular
Jul 02, 2012

DORIS SIMPSON vs. ORC MACRO, LIBERTY MUTUAL ORANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award of back surgery for applicant Doris Simpson. The Board found the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) opinion regarding industrial causation for the surgery was inadequately explained. The case is returned to the trial level for further medical development, specifically to clarify whether the 2006 industrial injury contributed to the applicant's need for the surgery. The applicant has a history of prior lumbar surgeries and pre-existing degenerative conditions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDORIS SIMPSONORC MACROLIBERTY MUTUAL ORANGEADJ1528926LBO 0378215OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONPrimary Treating PhysicianDr. Mudiyam
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kramer v. NAB Construction Corp.

In an action for personal injuries, the plaintiff, an employee of Simpson Metal Industries, Inc., received Workers' Compensation benefits after an accident while working on a construction project for NAB Construction Corp. The plaintiff subsequently sued NAB, alleging negligence. The Supreme Court denied NAB's motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiff was not a special employee. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the plaintiff was, as a matter of law, a special employee of NAB due to factors like NAB's control over work, shared firing authority, and reimbursement for wages. Furthermore, given the close relationship and shared Workers' Compensation coverage between Simpson and NAB, immunity was extended to NAB. Consequently, the appellate court granted the motions to dismiss the complaint against NAB and the third-party complaint against Simpson.

Special EmployeeGeneral EmployerIndemnificationPersonal InjuryNegligenceCPLR 4404Jury Verdict Set AsideThird-Party LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAppellate Reversal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

London v. London

This case concerns a lawsuit filed by a former wife against her former husband, alleging unlawful interception and recording of her telephone conversations with their eight-year-old daughter. The defendant used an automatic answering machine attached to his home phone, where the daughter resided, to record these calls during 1973-1974, a period of their legal separation before their divorce. The plaintiff sought damages under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511 and 2520, which prohibit willful wire communication interception and provide a civil cause of action. The Court, citing Simpson v. Simpson, dismissed the complaint, ruling that Congress did not intend these statutes to apply to a family member's interception of calls within the family home, regardless of the recording method or the specific family relationship.

Telephone EavesdroppingWire Communication InterceptionFamily LawDomestic DisputesPrivacyFederal JurisdictionMotion to Dismiss18 U.S.C. 251118 U.S.C. 2520Marital Home
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simpson Electric Corp. v. Leucadia Inc.

The dissenting opinion by Spatt, J., challenges the majority's decision regarding concurrent state and federal jurisdiction over civil RICO claims. Justice Spatt argues that the established presumption of concurrent jurisdiction, as outlined in Gulf Offshore Co. v Mobil Oil Corp., has not been overcome by any explicit statutory directive, unmistakable legislative history, or clear incompatibility with federal interests. The opinion critically examines RICO's relationship with antitrust laws, highlighting the distinctions drawn in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v Imrex Co.. Furthermore, it asserts that New York state courts possess the necessary competence to adjudicate civil RICO actions, particularly given the prevalence of state law violations and common-law fraud as predicate acts. Concluding, the dissent emphasizes that the New York State Organized Crime Control Act (OCCA) does not preclude concurrent jurisdiction but rather complements existing anti-racketeering remedies.

Civil RICO ClaimsConcurrent JurisdictionState CourtsFederal CourtsRacketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ActLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationAntitrust Law AnalogyDissenting OpinionAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Simpson v. Nassau Extended Care Center

A claimant sustained multiple back injuries between 2002 and 2009. An independent medical examination in 2009 apportioned liability 33.3% to each injury year. Subsequently, Healthcare Industry Trust of New York, the carrier for the 2002 injury, successfully sought to transfer liability for the 2002 claim to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, leading to its discharge. The Special Fund appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed, ruling that the 2009 medical report, which explicitly apportioned liability to the 2002 claim, constituted a timely application to reopen the prior claim within the statutory seven-year period, thus precluding the transfer of liability to the Special Fund.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability TransferMedical Report ApportionmentApplication to Reopen ClaimStatute of LimitationsIndependent Medical ExaminationBack InjuryNurse's AideWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Simpson v. Glen Aubrey Fire Co.

A volunteer fireman suffered an acute lumbosacral strain requiring frequent hospital and doctor visits. He sought reimbursement for 290 miles of travel expenses. The Workers' Compensation Board approved reimbursement at 20 cents per mile, leading to this appeal. The court examined whether travel expenses for medical treatment are reimbursable under the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law and Workers’ Compensation Law. It concluded that access to medical treatment implies the financial means to obtain it, upholding the humanitarian goals of the legislation.

Volunteer FiremanLumbosacral StrainMileage ReimbursementTravel ExpensesMedical TreatmentWorkers' Compensation LawVolunteer Firemen's Benefit LawStatutory InterpretationRemedial LawLiberal Construction
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Simpson v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant, identified as a bus driver who retired in 2011, applied for workers’ compensation benefits, alleging an occupational disease due to repetitive stress on his knees. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially disallowed the claim, crediting an independent medical examination by orthopedic surgeon Carl Wilson, who concluded the knee condition was not causally related to work, but rather due to age-related wear and tear and degenerative changes. This Court previously reversed and remitted the case due to the Board's misinterpretation of MRI results. On remittal, the Board again disallowed the claim, reaffirming Wilson's credible testimony. The Appellate Division now affirms the Board’s decision, finding Wilson's medical opinion, which was based on an examination and review of medical records, to be supported by a rational basis and substantial evidence.

occupational diseaseknee injuryrepetitive stressbus driverindependent medical examinationMRI resultsdegenerative changesosteoarthritiscausal relationshipsubstantial evidence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Simpson v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant, a retired bus driver, sought workers' compensation benefits for an occupational disease involving repetitive stress injuries to his knees. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, crediting orthopedic surgeon Pierce Ferriter's opinion that the knee condition was not work-related. The Workers’ Compensation Board later reopened the record, leading to a new independent medical examination by orthopedic surgeon Carl Wilson, who also found no causal link; the WCLJ again disallowed the claim, which the Board affirmed. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding that it was based on an inaccurate reading of MRI results and conflicting medical opinions regarding the extent of injury to the claimant's knees. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the Court's decision.

Occupational DiseaseKnee InjuryRepetitive StressIndependent Medical ExaminationCausationMedical EvidenceMRI InterpretationAppellate ProcedureBoard ReversalRemand
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 17 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