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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crawford v. Antonacci

Plaintiff James Crawford and his wife commenced a negligence action after James Crawford suffered a torn rotator cuff due to a fall on defendants' property on November 22, 2000. The plaintiffs sought to disqualify the defendants' law firm, Hinman, Howard & Kattell (HH&K), arguing a conflict of interest due to HH&K previously representing James Crawford in a workers' compensation claim for a back injury in 1987. The Supreme Court denied the disqualification motion. On appeal, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that the prior workers' compensation matter and the current negligence action were not "substantially related" under disciplinary rules, as the injuries were different, occurred 13 years apart, and any shared "loss of enjoyment of life" component was deemed speculative without specific impact descriptions. The court noted that all information regarding the prior injury would be discoverable regardless of legal representation.

Attorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestPrior RepresentationSubstantially Related MattersWorkers' Compensation ClaimNegligence ActionRotator Cuff InjuryBack InjuryDisciplinary RulesAppellate Affirmation
References
1
Case No. ADJ963026
Regular
Apr 30, 2013

BRODERICK CRAWFORD vs. AC TRANSIT, GATES MCDONALD

This case involves applicant Broderick Crawford's claim for continuing temporary total disability benefits following a 2000 work injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision. The ALJ found Dr. Blackwell's medical opinion to be more persuasive than Dr. Auerbach's, and this constituted substantial evidence to support the award of benefits. The Board affirmed that a single physician's well-reasoned opinion can be sufficient evidence, even if it conflicts with other medical evaluations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAC TransitGates McDonaldBroderick CrawfordPetition for ReconsiderationReport of WCJsubstantial evidencephysician opiniontemporary total disabilitybilateral hips
References
6
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00528 [224 AD3d 1256]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2024

People v. Crawford

Victor Crawford appealed a judgment convicting him of murder in the second degree and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon. The Appellate Division rejected his contentions regarding the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence. However, the court found a mode of proceedings error committed by County Court. The error occurred when the court failed to provide meaningful notice of a substantive jury note by not reading its exact text to defense counsel. Consequently, the judgment was unanimously reversed on the law, and a new trial was granted.

Criminal LawMurder Second DegreeCriminal Possession of WeaponJury VerdictAppellate ReviewMode of Proceedings ErrorJury NoteMeaningful NoticeReversalNew Trial
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cush-Crawford v. Adchem Corp.

This case involves allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation brought by Plaintiff Tonia Cush-Crawford against Defendant Adchem Corp. A jury found in favor of the Plaintiff on her hostile environment sexual harassment claim under Title VII, awarding $0 in compensatory damages but $100,000 in punitive damages. The Defendant moved to set aside the verdict and vacate the punitive damages award, arguing that punitive damages cannot be awarded without compensatory damages, an issue of first impression in this circuit. The Court denied the Defendant's motion, ruling that an award of compensatory damages is not a prerequisite for punitive damages in Title VII cases. The Plaintiff's motion for a new trial on damages was also denied, and the Court awarded attorney's fees and costs to the Plaintiff.

Title VIISexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesAttorney's FeesFederal Civil RightsEmployment LawRule 50 MotionRule 59 Motion
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crawford v. Monfield Homes, Inc.

Plaintiff Alan Crawford, Jr. sustained injuries on June 18, 1981, while working on a scaffold at premises allegedly owned by defendants Yudel Kahan and Leah Kahan in the Village of Kiryas Joel, Orange County, New York. Crawford sued under Labor Law sections 200(1), 241(6), and 240(1). Defendants Kahan sought to amend their answer to assert a counterclaim for indemnification and/or contribution from Crawford, alleging he acted as a contractor/agent with control over the job site, thus being liable under Labor Law sections 240 and 241. The court granted the motion to amend the answer concerning indemnification under Labor Law § 240(1), which imposes absolute liability, but denied it for Labor Law § 241(6), where comparative negligence is a defense. The decision emphasizes that an individual can be considered an "agent" under the Labor Law for purposes of direction, supervision, and control, regardless of corporate form.

Scaffolding AccidentLabor LawIndemnificationContributionAgent LiabilityNondelegable DutyAbsolute LiabilityComparative NegligenceAmended AnswerCounterclaim
References
8
Case No. LAO 0815296, LAO 0815298
Regular
Jul 29, 2008

MARIA LIEVANOS vs. GOLDEN STATE FOODS, BROADSPIRE (CRAWFORD & COMPANY) CNA/RSKCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, reversing a prior decision that found Crawford's petition for contribution untimely. The WCAB determined that the parties' Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement, specifically paragraph 14, constituted a final judgment of contribution between Crawford and RSKCo, setting forth their respective liabilities. Therefore, the WCAB held that Labor Code section 5500.5(e) did not bar Crawford's claim for reimbursement as the C&R itself provided the basis for contribution.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ContributionTimelinessStatute of LimitationsCompromise and Release (C&R)Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR)Apportionment of LiabilityDeclaratory JudgmentContinuing JurisdictionLabor Code Section 5500.5(e)
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Crawford

This decision addresses a criminal contempt proceeding initiated by the government against Gerald Crawford and Michael Warren for allegedly violating a temporary restraining order (TRO). The TRO, issued in an underlying civil action, prohibited certain conduct outside reproductive health care facilities. Defendants sought dismissal, arguing the TRO had expired under Rule 65(b) before their alleged violations. The Court rejected this, holding that the extended TRO became an appealable preliminary injunction, thus requiring defendants to obey it. The Court further denied defendants' motions for recusal, change of venue, and dismissal based on First Amendment claims, upholding the enforceability of its order.

Criminal ContemptTemporary Restraining Order (TRO)Preliminary InjunctionRule 65(b)Collateral Bar DoctrineFirst Amendment RightsRecusal MotionChange of Venue MotionJudicial AuthorityAppellate Review
References
55
Case No. ADJ9412815
Regular
Jul 07, 2015

CYNTHIA CRAWFORD vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the applicant, Cynthia Crawford, regarding a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board has granted the petition for reconsideration. This decision allows for further review of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned outcome. All future filings related to this petition must be submitted directly to the Appeals Board Commissioners, not to the district office.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationADJ9412815Oakland District OfficeOpinion and OrderStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionOffice of the CommissionersSan Francisco
References
0
Case No. ADJ4306808 (AHM 0061728)
Regular
Dec 17, 2012

DEBRA CRAWFORD vs. GUIDANT CORPORATION, ONE BEACON INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied One Beacon Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration regarding applicant Debra Crawford's cumulative injury. The Board affirmed the earlier decision establishing August 22, 1996, as the date of injury, which shifts liability from CIGA to One Beacon. The Board found sufficient evidence to support the August 22, 1996 date, despite One Beacon's arguments. Finally, the Board upheld the finding of permanent total disability, relying on persuasive medical opinions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDate of InjuryLabor Code Section 5412Cumulative InjuryBilateral Upper ExtremitiesNeck InjuryPermanent Total DisabilityOne Beacon Insurance CompanyCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ross-Caleb v. City of Rochester

Five current or former employees of the City of Rochester and their Chief of Security filed an employment discrimination lawsuit claiming gender discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and New York Human Rights Law. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all causes of action. The court dismissed Jean Claude Desardouin's claims as untimely and found that the other plaintiffs (Alfonda Crawford, Theresa Smith, Jewanta Desardouin, and Terra Ross-Caleb) failed to establish sufficient evidence for their hostile work environment or retaliation claims. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety, dismissing all plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.

Employment discriminationGender discriminationSexual harassmentRetaliation claimsHostile work environmentSummary judgmentTitle VII Civil Rights ActSection 1983 claimsNew York Human Rights LawEEOC administrative remedies
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 65 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