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. 2021 NY Slip Op 01050 [191 AD3d 884]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2021

Matter of Faith A. M. (Faith M.)

The mother, Faith M., appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which found her to have derivatively neglected her child, Faith A.M. This finding stemmed from a prior neglect determination in May 2014 concerning her other children due to excessive corporal punishment, which the court deemed proximate in time to the current proceeding. The evidence presented, including statements from siblings, testimony from a school counselor, and observations of injuries, corroborated the ongoing use of excessive corporal punishment. The Family Court's assessment of the mother's credibility, finding her denials incredible, was supported by the record, reinforced by her guilty plea to disorderly conduct related to similar allegations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, as the mother failed to provide evidence that the circumstances leading to the neglect finding no longer existed.

Child NeglectDerivative NeglectCorporal PunishmentFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewParental JudgmentPreponderance of EvidenceCredibilityPrior FindingsRisk of Harm
References
11
Case No. ADJ11080934
Regular
Oct 28, 2025

JUAN MARTINEZ vs. CREAM OF THE CROP AG SERVICE, INC.; CA FARM MANAGEMENT, INC.

The applicant, Juan Martinez, sought reconsideration of a prior decision that reversed a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) order imposing sanctions against the defendant for alleged frivolous tactics. The Appeals Board originally found insufficient evidence of bad-faith conduct by the defendant, Cream of the Crop AG Service, Inc. and CA Farm Management, Inc. In this petition, the applicant sought clarification on the standard of review and claimed certain issues were not addressed. The Board denied the applicant's petition, reiterating its finding that the defendant's actions did not constitute bad-faith litigation tactics under Labor Code section 5813, and confirmed that the responsibility for pursuing discovery, such as a neuropsychological evaluation recommended by Dr. Bhatia in 2018, did not rest solely on the defendant.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5813SanctionsAttorneys' FeesFrivolous TacticsBad Faith ConductNeuropsychology EvaluationAdditional PanelsReconsideration Proceedings
References
13
Case No. OAK 0295096
Regular
Sep 14, 2007

DAVID JONES vs. CSAA and ACE/ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order that denied sanctions against defense counsel. The applicant's attorney sought sanctions based on allegations of bad faith tactics in resisting a deposition fee and in subsequent payment negotiations, arguing the defense repeated arguments previously rejected in a similar case. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found no new evidence and maintained that the defense's actions did not rise to the level of bad faith warranting sanctions.

WCABReconsiderationSanctionsLabor Code §5813Bad Faith TacticsDeposition FeePeden v. Lockheed MartinLabor Code §5710Attorney's FeesStanding
References
1
Case No. ADJ10269827, ADJ10270738
Regular
Jun 04, 2018

OVIDIO SANCHEZ vs. COBRA ENGINEERING INC, THE HARTFORD

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration after their request for costs and sanctions was denied by the WCJ. The lien claimant argued the defendant engaged in bad-faith tactics by failing to timely pay for interpreter services and object to the invoice. However, the Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the defendant's prompt payment after receiving the petition for sanctions demonstrated an intent to pay, not willful bad faith. The defendant's payment of the invoice, including penalties and interest, also mitigated the claim for sanctions under Labor Code section 5813.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantPetition for SanctionsLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561Bad FaithInterpreter ServicesRule 9795.460-Day Rule
References
1
Case No. ADJ7977732, ADJ8044285, ADJ8044807
Regular
Nov 07, 2014

OSCAR ALVAREZ vs. EBUS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board withdrew a Notice of Intention to Issue Sanctions against lien claimant Mednet, Inc. and its representative, Michael Goldberg. Initially, sanctions were considered for filing a skeletal, unverified Petition for Reconsideration and failing to appear at a lien conference, deemed bad faith actions causing delay. However, after Mednet explained the actions as an "honest mistake" due to lack of experience and apologized, the Board found the petition was not filed in bad faith or as a frivolous tactic. Mednet was admonished to familiarize itself with Appeals Board rules regarding liens and filings, but sanctions were ultimately withdrawn.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalNotice of Intention to Issue SanctionsLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionUnverified PetitionNon-Final OrderLien ConferenceBad Faith Actions
References
4
Case No. ADJ954867 (SFO 0497953)
Regular
Dec 29, 2008

HERBERT BARRIOS vs. DEEP VAC, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board partially granted reconsideration, rescinding the award of attorney's fees for frivolous tactics but affirming the award for expert witness costs and a penalty for unreasonable refusal to pay. The Board found that while SCIF's refusal to pay for the diminished future earnings capacity expert was unreasonable, their actions did not rise to the level of bad faith or frivolous conduct required for sanctions. A dissenting opinion argued to affirm the original award of sanctions, finding SCIF's actions to be unreasonable and in bad faith based on prior unfavorable decisions and testimony from SCIF's claims adjustor.

Diminished Future Earnings CapacityVocational RehabilitationLabor Code section 5811Labor Code section 5814Labor Code section 5813Expert Witness FeesReconsiderationFindings and AwardSanctionsBad Faith Tactics
References
3
Case No. ADJ9344182, ADJ9344101
Regular
Jul 29, 2019

ROSA COREAS vs. LANGER JUICE COMPANY, INC., SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, ENSTAR (US), INC.

This case involved applicant Rosa Coreas's claim for workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained while employed by Langer Juice Company. The core dispute concerned whether the defendant acted in bad faith by refusing to agree to an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) or a joint request for additional Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panels for psychiatric and neurological evaluations. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the initial decision, finding that the defendant's refusal did not constitute bad faith or frivolous tactics under Labor Code Section 5813. The Board noted that both parties could have handled the situation better and that the case was distinguishable from prior precedent requiring such agreements. Ultimately, the Board determined there was no good cause to overturn the administrative law judge's decision denying sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and OrderAgreed Medical ExaminersQualified Medical EvaluatorsPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsBad Faith ActionsLabor Code Section 5813Administrative Director Rule 31.7Medical-Legal Report
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soto v. Koehler

The petitioner, Victor Soto, a tenured Correction Officer, was terminated during a probationary period on January 19, 1989, following disciplinary charges related to an auto accident and subsequent alleged excessive lateness. Soto filed a CPLR article 78 petition to challenge his termination, claiming bad faith, arguing that many of his eight latenesses were excusable due to external factors like snowstorms and transportation issues, and emphasizing his otherwise good work record. The Supreme Court dismissed his petition, finding no evidence of bad faith. This appellate decision affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the petitioner failed to prove bad faith, and that termination for lateness is a rational basis, particularly for a probationary employee, under the limited scope of judicial review for such cases. The dissenting opinion argued that the circumstances, including excusable latenesses and strong support from supervisors, demonstrated bad faith.

Correction OfficerProbationary EmploymentEmployee TerminationExcessive LatenessBad Faith AllegationCivil Service LawArticle 78 ReviewUnemployment BenefitsJudicial Review ScopeAppellate Affirmation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scott v. Workers' Compensation Board

A probationary employee's termination by the Workers' Compensation Board was upheld on appeal. The employee initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, claiming the dismissal was arbitrary, capricious, and in bad faith, but the Supreme Court dismissed the application. The appellate court affirmed, emphasizing that probationary employees can be terminated without explanation or a hearing unless the discharge is for constitutionally impermissible reasons, legal violations, or bad faith. The petitioner failed to demonstrate bad faith or that the termination was unrelated to job performance, as evidence showed deficiencies in understanding Workers' Compensation Law, lack of improvement after training, and improper conduct.

Employment TerminationProbationary EmployeeUnsatisfactory PerformanceBad FaithCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardCivil Service LawAdministrative LawPublic Employment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doolittle v. Lettiere

Petitioner appealed the dismissal of his petition in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. This proceeding challenged the termination of his employment as a Bridge Construction and Maintenance Supervisor at the conclusion of his probationary period. While probationary employees can generally be discharged without a hearing and without a statement of reasons, courts may intervene if the discharge was made in bad faith, with the burden of proof on the employee. The appellate court concluded that the petitioner's submitted evidence, including affidavits from himself and co-workers, was sufficient to raise a question of fact regarding the respondents' bad faith. Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in summarily dismissing the petition, and the matter is remitted for a hearing on the issue of bad faith.

CPLR Article 78Probationary EmploymentEmployment TerminationBad Faith DischargeJudicial ReviewAppellate ProcedureQuestion of FactRemittalSummary DismissalAffidavits
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 791 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