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. ADJ9054807 ADJ8782974
Regular
Dec 08, 2015

FANNE DUTTON vs. SAVEMART SUPERMARKETS, PEGASUS RM

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final order that only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The WCAB also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would warrant this extraordinary remedy. The applicant's attorney was reminded to include their State Bar membership number on future filings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural DecisionEvidentiary Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parry v. Tompkins County

Plaintiff, a counselor for Tompkins County, alleged unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation after her job duties were changed due to client allegations. She filed a grievance and a complaint under Local Law No. 6. A settlement resolved the grievance, but conciliation efforts for the discrimination complaint ceased in May or October 1996. Plaintiff later filed a lawsuit in December 1997, alleging a violation of Local Law No. 6, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court as time-barred. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding the action was time-barred under Local Law No. 6's one-year statute of limitations, as conciliation efforts terminated earlier than claimed and no continuing pattern of discrimination was established.

DiscriminationSexual OrientationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsConciliation EffortsGrievance ProcedureAppellate ReviewTime-Barred ClaimContinuing Violation DoctrineLocal Law No. 6
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1992

Seelig v. Sielaff

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially issued a judgment enjoining respondents from releasing the social security numbers of correction officers without their consent and ordered the implementation of privacy safeguards. This judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal, vacated, and the proceeding was converted to one for a declaratory judgment. The appellate court declared that the release of correction officers' social security numbers by the respondents, in response to a Public Officers Law § 87 request, constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy under Public Officers Law § 89 (2), citing federal precedents. The injunctive relief previously granted was also deemed improper as the Personal Privacy Protection Law (Public Officers Law § 92 [1]) exempts local government units and the judiciary from its provisions.

Freedom of Information LawPrivacy InvasionSocial Security NumbersCorrection OfficersPublic Officers LawDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewGovernment RecordsConfidentialityCPLR Article 78
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Criminal Bar Ass'n v. Newton

Plaintiffs, including Coastal Oil New York, Inc. and two criminal defense bar associations, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three New York State Justices, alleging that the New York County District Attorney illicitly influenced the assignment of judges to "high-profile" criminal cases, thereby violating their due process rights. The alleged scheme involved the D.A. selecting "pro-prosecution" judges for initial ex parte orders, then recommending them for grand jury duties and subsequent trials. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing mootness and lack of standing. The District Court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that Coastal Oil's claim was moot because the challenged judge had recused himself, and the remaining bar associations and individual plaintiffs lacked standing as they had not suffered a concrete injury. Consequently, the amended complaint was dismissed.

Due ProcessJudicial AssignmentCriminal ProcedureStandingMootnessFederal Question Jurisdiction42 U.S.C. Section 1983District AttorneyJudicial Bias AllegationsRecusal
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 1981

Lanza v. Quebec & Ontario Transportation Co.

A longshoreman (plaintiff) was injured in 1977 while working on the defendant's vessel. He subsequently settled a federal workers' compensation claim with his employer's carrier in 1978; however, no formal compensation order was filed, although a claims examiner's letter acknowledged the settlement. In 1979, the plaintiff initiated an action against the defendant, who moved for summary judgment contending the complaint was time-barred under 33 U.S.C. § 933(b), which mandates third-party actions within six months of settlement. Special Term initially denied the defendant's motion, but the appellate court reversed this decision. Citing a precedent, the court held that the claims examiner's letter functioned as an 'award in a compensation order,' thereby triggering the statute of limitations, and rendering the plaintiff's action time-barred.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationLongshoremanFederal LawThird-Party ActionSettlementCompensation OrderAppellate ReviewReversal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mott v. ITT Industries

A claimant, who performed clerical duties for the employer for over 27 years, was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in 2006 and applied for workers’ compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the disallowance of the claim as time-barred pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 28. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, noting that despite the claimant's prior awareness of work-related symptoms, the Board failed to establish the crucial date of disablement. Without this finding, the conclusion regarding the claim being time-barred could not be supported. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeStatute of LimitationsDate of DisablementAppellate ProcedureClaim DisallowanceReversalRemittiturLegal InterpretationCausation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hazzard v. Adams Russell Cable Services

Claimant, a line technician, sustained a left knee injury in January 1987 but did not file a workers' compensation claim until August 1995. The employer's carrier argued the claim was time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, a contention upheld by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Board. On appeal, the claimant argued that a C-4 medical report from 1987 or an advance payment of compensation should have prevented the claim from being time-barred. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no evidence that the C-4 report was filed with the Board within the two-year statutory period, nor that the employer or carrier made an advance payment to waive the statute of limitations.

Workers' CompensationTime-barred ClaimStatute of LimitationsAdvance PaymentMedical ReportBoard AffirmationAppellate ReviewKnee InjuryLine Technician
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 1997

Claim of Crawford v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant who sustained a finger injury from a hypodermic needle in 1987. After an initial workers' compensation award, the case was reopened in 1993 when the claimant asserted a claim for a consequential posttraumatic neurosis or 'AIDS reaction phobia'. The employer argued that the two-year Statute of Limitations under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 barred the psychiatric claim. However, the Board rejected this argument and affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's decision to address the psychiatric condition. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that Section 28 does not bar amendment of a timely claim to include consequential injuries if a relationship exists between the subsequent claim and the initial injury.

Psychiatric Injury ClaimStatute of Limitations Workers' CompConsequential Psychological InjuriesHypodermic Needle InjuryAIDS Reaction PhobiaWorkers' Compensation Board AppealSection 28 BarAmendment of Timely ClaimCausally Related Disability
References
3
Case No. ADJ7463348
Regular
Jan 20, 2012

Olga Garau vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, legally uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, adjusting agency

Applicant Olga Garau petitioned for removal of her case, alleging that assigned workers' compensation judges (WCJs) could not lawfully act as they were not active members of the California Bar. The Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's report and recommendation. The Board clarified that Labor Code section 123.5 requires WCJs to be licensed attorneys and maintain State Bar membership, which includes inactive members. Therefore, the applicant's allegations regarding the judges' qualifications were unsubstantiated, and the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ RecusalLabor Code Section 123.5State Bar MembershipActive vs. Inactive MemberBusiness and Professions Code Section 6003WCAB Rule 10848Report and RecommendationExpedited Trial
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2001

Fishman v. Mills

Petitioners Michael Fishman, president of a union, and American Building Maintenance Company of New York appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed their CPLR article 78 petition as time-barred. The case stemmed from the award of a cleaning contract to respondent Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Inc. as a preferred source provider, displacing American Building's workers. Petitioners challenged Fedcap's qualification, alleging it employed individuals not 'severely' disabled as required by State Finance Law § 162. The Supreme Court found the proceeding untimely, ruling that the challenge to Fedcap's preferred source provider status became final and binding by August or September 1999, well before the October 2000 commencement. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding the core challenge was to Fedcap's initial qualification, not later contract approvals, thus rendering the proceeding time-barred.

Administrative LawTimelinessStatute of LimitationsCPLR Article 78Preferred Source ProviderDisabled EmploymentGovernment ContractsPublic ProcurementUnion RightsContract Award
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,689 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