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. ADJ4423738 (OAK 0328993)
Regular
Sep 16, 2013

ANDRE BRADFORD vs. LABOR READY; ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Andre Bradford's petition for reconsideration because it was not timely filed. A petition for reconsideration can only be filed from a final order that determines substantive rights or liabilities. Interlocutory orders, such as those related to evidence, discovery, or trial setting, are not final and thus not subject to reconsideration. Bradford's petition was therefore dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionNon-FinalAggrieved PartyDisqualification
References
9
Case No. ADJ9074641
Regular
Feb 04, 2015

KEITH LOWRIE vs. BRADFORD & BARTHEL, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Zenith Insurance Company's Petition for Removal. The Board found that an earlier order improperly sustained the applicant's objection to attending a Qualified Medical Examination (QME). This order contravened established law allowing either party to request a QME at any time after a claim form is filed. The Board rescinded the erroneous order, recognizing that its continued existence would cause substantial prejudice and irreparable harm to the petitioner.

Petition for RemovalPQMEOrder Sustaining ObjectionLabor Code Sections 4060(d)4062.1(b)Mendoza v. Huntington HospitalClaim FormDiscovery DisputePanel Qualified Medical ExaminerCumulative Injury
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06588 [210 AD3d 1496]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2022

Green v. Evergreen Family Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Bradford Green initiated an action to recover damages for injuries sustained from a fall off an A-frame ladder while working on a car wash overhead door. The defendants, Evergreen Family Limited Partnership, moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff's activity was not covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) or that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability and dismissal of the sole proximate cause defense. The Supreme Court denied both motions regarding the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but granted plaintiff's motion on the 14th affirmative defense. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding triable issues of fact concerning whether the work constituted routine maintenance or a repair, and the adequacy of the safety device provided, thus precluding a sole proximate cause defense as a matter of law.

Ladder FallWorkplace InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentProximate CauseSafety EquipmentAppellate DivisionConstruction Site SafetyMaintenance vs. RepairPersonal Injury
References
23
Case No. RDG 116853; RDG 116854; RDG 116855; RDG 116856; RDG 122064
Regular
Sep 13, 2007

GARY STODDARD vs. NEVADA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the administrative law judge's decision, which found no employer discrimination under Labor Code § 132a. However, the Board amended the order to shift $\$500$ in sanctions from the defendant employer to its defense counsel, Bradford & Barthel, for their conduct prior to and during trial. The applicant's contention of discrimination was otherwise rejected.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDLabor Code § 132aantidiscriminationreconsiderationsanctionsWCJFindings and OrderOrder No. 5Bradford & Bartheltrial activities
References
0
Case No. ADJ8620205, ADJ8967412
Regular
Dec 10, 2015

SONIA RODRIGUEZ vs. FRESH BAKED LOVIN OVEN, ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding a WCJ's order taking the case off calendar. The Board found that key parties, including the applicant's legal representation (Bradford & Barthel, LLP) and their insurer (PMAIC), were not properly served with notices of hearings. This lack of notice prevented them from participating and asserting their rights, violating due process. The matter is remanded for a properly noticed lien conference and subsequent lien trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJMinute OrderLien ConferenceLien TrialCompromise and ReleaseNotice of RepresentationDue ProcessService
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bradford v. Weber

The plaintiff, a marketing manager for Rushmore & Weber, Inc., was terminated after expressing his intent to exercise a stock option. He sued the company and its president, Peter B. Weber, for breach of his employment contract and intentional interference with his stock option agreement. The trial court dismissed the intentional interference claim, ruling that all agreements formed a single contract, precluding interference by a party to that contract. A jury found that the plaintiff was terminated for "good cause" as defined in his employment contract, citing poor performance and misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in dismissing the intentional interference claim and upholding the jury's verdict as supported by evidence.

Employment ContractStock Option AgreementBreach of ContractIntentional InterferenceGood Cause TerminationCorporate LawShareholder AgreementAppellate ReviewJury VerdictSufficiency of Evidence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCluskey v. West Bradford Corp.

Plaintiff Elizabeth McCluskey sustained an injury to her toe from a piece of metal embedded in a tile floor shortly after her employer moved into a new building. She initiated a negligence action against the landowner, building owner, general contractor, and the tile subcontractor, but a jury returned a verdict of no cause for action. On appeal, plaintiff asserted multiple errors, including the denial of requested jury charges on circumstantial evidence, adverse inference, constructive notice, res ipsa loquitur, and foreseeability, as well as a remark by opposing counsel and the court's refusal to grant a directed verdict. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments, finding no significant errors in the jury instructions, that the summation remark was harmless, and that the denial of a directed verdict was proper given the evidence. The court also noted that res ipsa loquitur was not applicable due to the lack of exclusive control by defendants over the area of injury.

NegligencePremises LiabilityTile Floor InjuryCircumstantial EvidenceRes Ipsa LoquiturJury InstructionsDirected VerdictAppellate ReviewConstructive NoticeSummation Error
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bradford v. City of New York

This case addresses whether the medical report exchange rule, 22 NYCRR 202.17 (h), applies to medical reports not specifically prepared for litigation. The plaintiff, a postal carrier, sued the City of New York for head and neck injuries sustained when a lamppost fell on his truck. After a jury verdict in the plaintiff's favor, the defendant attempted to introduce expert medical testimony from a Postal Service medical officer without prior exchange of his report. The court excluded this testimony, emphasizing the rule's intent to prevent surprise and ensure fair trial preparation, and denied the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict.

Medical report exchange ruleRule 202.17 (h)Expert witness testimonyExclusion of evidencePersonal injuryNegligence liabilityJury verdictPost-concussion syndromeTreating physicianMedical officer
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1979

Bradford v. Air La Carte, Inc.

Plaintiff was injured at a catering facility operated by defendant Air La Carte, Inc. (Air), a subsidiary of ARA Services, Inc. (ARA). Air asserted an exclusive remedy defense under Workers' Compensation Law, arguing plaintiff was its employee. Plaintiff moved to strike this defense, and Air cross-moved for summary judgment. Special Term, relying on a Workers' Compensation Board decision naming ARA as the employer, ruled that only ARA was the employer, thus allowing the negligence action against Air. The Appellate Court modified the decision, holding that res judicata did not apply to Air because it was not a party to the prior compensation proceeding. The court also determined that whether Air was plaintiff's employer was a factual issue due to ambiguous documents, requiring further trial to explore the relationship between the parent and subsidiary corporations.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelEmployer-Employee RelationshipParent-Subsidiary LiabilitySummary JudgmentNegligence ActionAppellate ReviewDual Employment
References
17
Case No. ADJ11489310
Regular
Oct 26, 2020

KEITH BRADFORD vs. PACIFIC ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS, ESIS, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and found that the applicant sustained industrial injury to his left pinkie. The Board rejected the applicant's claim for other body parts, finding no substantial evidence of injury beyond the pinkie. The matter is returned to the trial level to further develop the record regarding injury to other parts of the left upper extremity. The intoxication defense and Labor Code Section 5402 presumption were also addressed.

Labor Code Section 3600(a)(4)intoxication defenseWCJADJ11489310reconsiderationfindings of factleft pinkieleft handneuropsyche
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 15 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