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. ADJ2667325 (LAO 0789144)
Regular
Jul 08, 2014

Brenda Millender vs. Ford Motor Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding Brenda Millender sustained a psychiatric injury due to her employment at Ford Motor Company. Ford argued the WCJ erred in finding actual employment events caused the injury, that medical evidence was insufficient, and that the injury stemmed from lawful personnel actions. The WCAB rescinded the award and returned the case to the trial level. This is because the WCJ did not properly analyze Ford's affirmative defense that the injury was substantially caused by good faith personnel actions, as required by Labor Code section 3208.3(h). The WCJ also failed to consider Ford's documentary evidence supporting its defense and misapplied the causation standard for good faith personnel actions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBrenda MillenderFord Motor CompanyOpinion and Decision After Reconsiderationindustrial cumulative traumapsyche injurypredominant causeLabor Code section 3208.3good faith personnel actionssubstantial medical evidence
References
1
Case No. CV-23-0992
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Brenda Cross

Claimant Brenda Cross appealed a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board concerning the payment of medical bills for diagnostic testing. The employer's carrier objected to the payment because the claimant did not use a contracted provider for an MRI. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Board ruled in favor of the carrier, finding the claimant not responsible for the bill. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, concluding that the claimant lacked standing as she was not aggrieved by the decision, given she was not responsible for the medical expenses.

Medical Bills DisputeDiagnostic Testing ReimbursementLack of StandingAggrieved Party DoctrineWorkers' Compensation Carrier ResponsibilityAppellate DismissalOut-of-Network ServicesRight Knee InjuryConsequential InjuryWCLJ Decision Affirmation
References
2
Case No. 534023
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Brenda Sanchez

Brenda Sanchez, a station agent, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision denying her claim for benefits for repetitive stress injuries to her neck, back, left shoulder, left hip, and left hand. Initially, the claim was disallowed as time-barred, but the Appellate Division remitted the matter. Upon remittal, the WCB found that the injuries were not causally related to her employment, discrediting the opinion of her treating physician, Stephen Roberts. The Appellate Division affirmed the WCB's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Sanchez failed to establish a recognizable link between her injuries and a distinctive feature of her occupation, specifically the lifting of heavy coin bags, due to insufficient evidence regarding frequency and a clear causal mechanism.

Occupational diseaseRepetitive stress injuryCausationMedical evidenceSubstantial evidenceStation agentWorkers' compensation benefitsTime-barred claimBoard decisionAppellate review
References
8
Case No. CV-23-0309
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Brenda Fernandez

Claimant Brenda Fernandez appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying death benefits to her late husband, John Fernandez, a track inspector who contracted COVID-19. John died in November 2020, purportedly due to cardiac arrest and pulmonary embolism, after testing positive for COVID-19 in March 2020. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found a work-related injury, the Board later modified and disallowed the claim. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the claimant failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that decedent contracted COVID-19 in the course of his employment. The Court emphasized the lack of substantial evidence regarding specific exposure or elevated risk in the workplace.

COVID-19Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsCausal RelationEmployment ExposureSubstantial EvidenceTrack InspectorPulmonary EmbolismCardiac ArrestAppellate ReviewBurden of Proof
References
22
Case No. 535753
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Brenda Sanchez

Brenda Sanchez, a former railroad clerk and station agent, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits in October 2020 for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, attributing it to repetitive job duties during her 33-year employment. The employer controverted the claim. Orthopedic surgeon Pamela Levine testified that the condition was causally-related to her job duties. However, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed the claim, and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, finding no sufficient causal link between the alleged occupational disease and a distinctive feature of her employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Sanchez failed to provide sufficient credible medical evidence, as Dr. Levine's testimony did not adequately explain the relationship between claimant's post-1995 duties and her condition, first diagnosed in 2020.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardNew York City Transit AuthorityRepetitive Motion InjurySufficiency of EvidenceExpert Testimony
References
7
Case No. TP 13-02080
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2014

HARWOOD, BRENDA v. ADDISON, SHARON

Brenda Harwood, a senior account clerk typist for the City of Watertown's Parks and Recreation Department, was terminated from her employment following charges of incompetence and misconduct. A hearing officer initially sustained some charges but recommended an employee improvement plan instead of termination. The respondent, Sharon Addison, City Manager, adopted some findings of guilt and sustained an additional specification, subsequently terminating Harwood's employment. The Appellate Division found that the determination of guilt on one specific misconduct charge (charge 2, specification 2) was not supported by substantial evidence and that the penalty of termination was disproportionate to the remaining sustained charges of incompetence, especially considering Harwood's 29 years of unblemished service. The court modified the determination, annulling the unsupported misconduct finding, vacating the termination penalty, and remitting the case for imposition of a lesser penalty not exceeding a two-month suspension without pay.

Employment TerminationMisconductIncompetenceJudicial ReviewAppellate DecisionCivil Service LawPenalty VacatedRemittalSufficiency of EvidenceDue Process
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benjamin v. Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC

This case involves Patrice Benjamin and Brenda Thomas (Plaintiffs) suing Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC (Defendant) for alleged employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the New York Human Rights Law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Defendant filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, while the Plaintiffs cross-moved to amend their complaint. The court dismissed Brenda Thomas's Title VII and NYSHRL claims entirely and limited Patrice Benjamin's Title VII and NYSHRL claims for race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment to actions occurring after December 21, 2002. The court also dismissed the Plaintiffs' Section 1983/Bivens claims but denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss Benjamin's ADA claim. Finally, the Plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend the complaint was granted in part, allowing for the inclusion of a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 cause of action for both plaintiffs, along with specific, limited claims for Benjamin in the amended complaint.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VIINew York Human Rights Law42 U.S.C. § 198342 U.S.C. § 1981Judgment on the PleadingsAmending Complaint
References
28
Case No. ADJ4394929 (LAO 0825655)
Regular
Jul 08, 2010

BRENDA DULAC vs. GAMBRO HEALTHCARE, SUNNYSIDE REHABILITATION, ESIS, CIGA

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved a petition for removal filed by applicant Brenda Dulac concerning an order that rescinded a prior findings and award for further record development. Applicant later withdrew her petition for removal. Consequently, the Board dismissed the petition, as applicant no longer sought removal.

Petition for removalOrder rescindingFurther development of the recordWithdrawn petitionDismissed petitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeFindings and Award
References
0
Case No. ADJ13310557
Regular
Oct 14, 2020

BRENDA TURNER vs. MERCY HOSPITAL OF FOLSOM, DIGNITY HEALTH, SEDGWICK CLAIMS

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves Brenda Turner as the applicant and Mercy Hospital of Folsom, Dignity Health, and Sedgwick Claims as defendants. The Board is issuing an Opinion and Order dismissing the Petition for Removal. This dismissal is solely because the petitioner voluntarily withdrew their petition.

Petition for RemovalWithdrawn PetitionDismissal OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMercy Hospital of FolsomDignity HealthSedgwick ClaimsADJ13310557September 1 2020 decisionRatto Law Firm
References
0
Case No. 2014 NYSlipOp 06768 [121 AD3d 441]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2014

Williams v. Air Serv Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted class certification to plaintiffs in a wage dispute against Air Serv Corporation. The plaintiffs, including Brenda Williams, alleged underpayment due to a policy originating from an Air Serv supervisor at John F. Kennedy International Airport. The court found that the plaintiffs met the prerequisites for class action certification under CPLR 901 and 902, demonstrating common issues of law and fact, typicality, and adequate representation. It also determined that a class action was superior to individual administrative proceedings due to litigation costs and modest individual damages, upholding the lower court's decision.

class action certificationwage disputeCPLR 901CPLR 902appellate reviewemployment lawclass representationcommonalitytypicalitysuperiority of class action
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 45 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