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. ADJ9708192
Regular
Jul 05, 2018

BRIAN DANSKIN vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, PEMISSIDLY SELF-INSURED, CITY OF CYPRESS, PEMISSIDLY SELF-INSURED

This case involves Brian Danskin, who claimed industrial cumulative trauma in the form of skin cancer/melanoma sustained during his employment as a police officer and District Attorney's investigator. The defendant, County of Riverside, sought reconsideration of the WCJ's finding that Danskin was entitled to the Labor Code section 3212.1 cancer presumption for his investigator role. The defendant argued the investigator position didn't qualify for the presumption and that the injury predated his employment with the county. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report, finding that Danskin's extensive law enforcement duties as an investigator were central to his role and qualified him for the cancer presumption under section 3212.1.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBrian DanskinCounty of RiversideCity of CypressPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJindustrial cumulative traumaskin cancermelanoma
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brian Fay Construction, Inc. v. Morstan General Agency, Inc.

Brian Fay Construction, Inc. (plaintiff) contracted with J.E Spano and Company, agreeing to indemnify Spano. The plaintiff then instructed its insurance agents, DFW Associates, Inc. and Douglass Fenning (together DFW), and later Morstan General Agency, Inc., to add Spano as an additional insured to its general liability policy with Burlington Insurance Company. An employee of Brian Fay Construction was injured, leading to a claim against Spano and a third-party action against the plaintiff. Burlington denied coverage, citing an employee exclusion and stating there was no evidence Spano was an additional insured. The plaintiff sued the agents for failing to properly procure insurance, seeking a declaration that they were obligated to defend and indemnify. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that Burlington would have been obligated to cover the claim even if Spano had been properly named as an additional insured.

Insurance Broker LiabilityAdditional InsuredSummary JudgmentDuty to Procure InsuranceIndemnificationGeneral Liability PolicyEmployee Liability ExclusionAppellate ReviewConstruction ContractInsurance Coverage Dispute
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brian v. Johns

Petitioner Carol Brian initiated an action against respondent Frank T. Johns to establish paternity for her child, Sara, born March 4, 1973, and to secure child support. A court-ordered blood grouping test, conducted at the respondent's expense following an order on January 2, 1974, excluded Mr. Johns as the father. Unsatisfied with these results, the petitioner requested a second blood test, but the court denied this motion after reconsideration, citing respondent's opposition and the lack of statutory authority in Section 532 of the Family Court Act for ordering a second test over objection. The court ruled that the trial should proceed, requiring the respondent to present the performing doctor as a witness to explain the test's basis and procedure, allowing the petitioner to question its accuracy. The decision acknowledged a potential margin of error in such tests and affirmed the petitioner's opportunity to rebut the blood test evidence, as it is not the sole determinant of paternity.

paternityblood testFamily Court Actevidencetrialmotion deniedchild supportmedical examination accuracyserologyhemotology
References
2
Case No. CV-23-1921
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Brian Giesselmann

Claimant Brian Giesselmann appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board found that Giesselmann violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by misrepresenting his physical condition during a permanency evaluation for a right shoulder injury sustained in June 2016. Video surveillance and medical expert testimony from Dr. Daniel Bowman indicated discrepancies between Giesselmann's reported limitations and his actual physical activities. The Board affirmed the WCLJ's finding of a mandatory penalty of forfeiture of any SLU award and a discretionary penalty of permanent disqualification from future indemnity benefits due to egregious misrepresentations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, finding substantial evidence to support the violation and the imposed penalties.

Workers' CompensationFraudMisrepresentationSchedule Loss of UseIndemnity BenefitsDisqualificationMedical ExaminationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWitness Credibility
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2015

People v. Brian M.

Brian M., a 19-year-old, was charged with a drug sale and pleaded guilty, but struggled significantly with drug addiction and mental health issues. Through the persistent efforts of the Andrew Glover Youth Program and a therapeutic remand, he underwent a complete transformation, completing an inpatient program, becoming drug-free, enrolling in college, and securing full-time employment. Despite the People's opposition, Judge Thomas Farber granted Brian M.'s motion to dismiss the indictment in the interests of justice. The court recognized the compelling reasons for judicial intervention, citing Brian M.'s successful rehabilitation, the non-violent nature of his crime, and the severe, lasting negative impact a felony conviction would have on his life, ensuring he could become a productive citizen.

Drug AddictionMental HealthYouthful OffenderRehabilitationIndictment DismissalInterests of JusticeCriminal Procedure LawNew YorkSentencing ReformNon-violent Crime
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Brian B.

Respondents Timothy M. and Debbie M. appealed a Family Court order finding their children neglected and placing them in the care of Erie County Department of Social Services. The court found Brian B., Jr. neglected based on testimony from day care workers and a pediatrician confirming an injury inconsistent with an accident, likely inflicted by a parent. Alecia M. was also found neglected due to evidence suggesting respondents' distorted disciplinary methods posed a risk of similar harm. However, the appellate court determined that the Family Court erred by not conducting a dispositional hearing. Therefore, the order was modified by vacating the disposition, and the matter was remitted to Erie County Family Court for the necessary hearing.

NeglectChild CustodyFamily CourtParental RightsChild WelfareDue ProcessAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary StandardsChild InjuryDispositional Hearing
References
8
Case No. 532779
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

In the Matter of the Claim of Brian Reith

Claimant, a firefighter, filed for workers' compensation benefits due to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from numerous traumatic work-related incidents over his career. The Workers' Compensation Board initially denied the claim, then on reconsideration, acknowledged the applicability of the 2017 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 10 (3) (b) but still found insufficient medical proof of a causal relationship between his employment and PTSD. On appeal, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, reversed the Board's decision. The Court determined that claimant's treating psychologist provided unequivocal and sufficient medical evidence establishing a reasonable probability of a causal link, and the Board's rejection of this uncontroverted testimony lacked substantial evidence. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

PTSDFirefighterWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPsychological InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceStatutory AmendmentFirst RespondersMental Injury ClaimExtraordinary Work-Related Stress
References
16
Case No. ADJ14132796
Regular
Jul 25, 2025

Jolee Rogelstad vs. Brian Silver

Applicant Jolee Rogelstad claimed injury while employed by defendant Brian Silver on June 21, 2020. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings, Award, and Order. The WCAB rescinded the initial F&A and substituted a new one, affirming the employer-employee relationship but deferring the issues of injury arising out of and in the course of employment and judicial notice of the applicant's prior case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings Award OrderAdministrative Law JudgeIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusBunkhouse RuleSitus of InjuryCourse of EmploymentEmployer Liability
References
10
Case No. ADJ7236428
Regular
Oct 01, 2012

BRIAN CAMPBELL vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

This case involves a dispute over a $2,017.04 lien filed by VQ OrthoCare for medical equipment provided to injured worker Brian Campbell. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the previous order allowing the lien. The Board found that VQ OrthoCare failed to meet its burden of proof under Labor Code section 4600, as there was insufficient medical evidence establishing the necessity of the OrthoStim4 equipment for the applicant's industrial injury. The prior findings regarding inadequate utilization review and service issues were rendered moot by this determination.

VQ OrthoCarelien claimantLabor Code section 4600burden of proofmedical treatmentutilization revieworthopedic consultationsprimary treating physicianagreed medical examinerOrthoStim4
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2006

Velasquez-Spillers v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on September 26, 2006, presided over by Justice Leland DeGrasse. This order granted defendant Infinity Broadcasting Corporation’s motion to dismiss intentional tort claims and plaintiff Brian Spillers’ cause of action for loss of services. Upon appeal, the court modified the order to reclassify the dismissal of an employment discrimination claim as a dismissal of a negligent hiring claim, otherwise affirming the original decision. The court found that allegations of Infinity’s vicarious liability for its supervisor Macchiaroli’s intentional torts were conclusory and outside the scope of employment, thus subjecting the claims to Workers’ Compensation Law. Furthermore, the complaint lacked evidence of Infinity's knowledge or acquiescence in Macchiaroli’s conduct, leading to the proper dismissal of related claims.

Intentional TortVicarious LiabilityEmployment DiscriminationNegligent HiringLoss of ServicesWorkers' Compensation Law ExclusivityScope of EmploymentMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewOrder Modification
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 132 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