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
Aug 18, 1971

Claim of Bernsley v. Telemarine Communications Co.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which allowed a claim for death benefits. The decedent, a principal in the appellant corporation, died from cardiac failure during an emotional discussion about a vault tax assessed against a related corporation and paid by the appellant. The board found that the tax problems arose from decedent's employment with the appellant and that the emotional strain caused his death. The court affirmed the board’s finding that the problems over the vault tax arose out of and during the course of decedent’s employment and that the emotional strain and anxiety from dealing with the tax problems caused decedent’s death.

Death benefitsCardiac failureEmotional strainEmployment-related deathVault taxWorkmen's Compensation Board appealCausationSubstantial evidenceEmployer liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Johnson City Professional Firefighters Local 921 & Village of Johnson City

This case addresses whether a 'no-layoff' clause in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Village of Johnson City and its firefighter union was subject to arbitration. The Village abolished six firefighter positions citing budgetary necessity, leading the Johnson City Professional Fire Fighters, Local 921 IAFF, to file a grievance and seek to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeals reversed lower court decisions that had compelled arbitration. The court held that the no-layoff clause was not arbitrable because it failed to explicitly, unambiguously, and comprehensively protect against job abolition due to budgetary reasons. The term 'layoff' was deemed ambiguous and undefined within the CBA, rendering the dispute non-arbitrable on public policy grounds, thereby granting the Village's application to stay arbitration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Layoff ClausePublic PolicyBudgetary StringenciesJob SecurityMunicipal EmploymentContract InterpretationUnion GrievanceFirefighters
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adamski v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Richard M. Adamski sued the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c) to review the denial of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Adamski, born in 1952 with a history of back problems and surgeries, alleged disability since 1998 due to recurrent back problems. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found him not disabled, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. The court reviewed the ALJ's five-step disability evaluation, concluding that the ALJ correctly applied legal standards and that her decision is supported by substantial evidence regarding Adamski's residual functional capacity for light work, his treating physician's opinions, and his pain complaints. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and Adamski's motion was denied, leading to the dismissal of the action with prejudice.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActALJ Decision ReviewResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleVocational Expert TestimonyCredibility AssessmentBack DisorderKnee DisorderLight Work
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romanelli v. Long Island Railroad

Frank Romanelli sued his employer, the Long Island Railroad Company (LIRR), under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), alleging that his work as a track worker exposed him to hazardous environmental contaminants, causing pulmonary and cardiac problems. LIRR filed three motions in limine to preclude Romanelli's medical experts from testifying on causation, Romanelli from testifying about exposure to toxins at unsafe levels, and Romanelli from testifying that LIRR had a duty to provide a respirator. The court granted the motions in part and denied in part. It allowed treating physicians to testify on the causation of respiratory issues by workplace exposures due to common knowledge, but not on the link between pulmonary and cardiac problems without demonstrated methodology. Romanelli was permitted to testify about his first-hand exposure to dust, fumes, and chemicals but not to label them as 'hazardous contaminants' or at 'unsafe' levels. Lastly, Romanelli could not testify about LIRR's legal duty to provide a respirator, but could testify about not being provided one despite requests and that its absence caused him to ingest more harmful substances.

FELAMotions in LimineExpert Witness TestimonyLay Witness TestimonyCausationEvidentiary StandardsWorkplace ExposurePulmonary ConditionsCardiac ConditionsRespirator Requirements
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pataki v. New York State Assembly

This Opinion of the Court resolves a significant dispute between the Governor and the New York State Legislature concerning their constitutional roles in the state budget process, affirming the executive budgeting system established in 1927. The Court reinforced the principle that the Governor acts as the budget's "constructor," with the Legislature primarily limited to striking out or reducing appropriation items. In Silver v Pataki, the Court declared the Legislature's actions unconstitutional for attempting to alter the purposes and conditions of Governor's 1998 appropriation bills through subsequent legislation. Similarly, regarding the 2001 budget in Pataki v New York State Assembly, the Court rejected the Legislature's use of "single-purpose bills" to replace Governor's appropriation items and upheld the Governor's authority to include detailed programmatic conditions within appropriation bills. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's orders, deciding the dispute in the Governor's favor and reiterating that all appropriations inherently involve policy decisions, thereby limiting judicial intervention in budgetary content disputes unless clearly non-budgetary.

Executive BudgetingLegislative PowerSeparation of PowersAppropriation BillsLine-Item VetoConstitutional LawNew York Court of AppealsBudget ProcessGubernatorial AuthorityLegislative Alteration
References
19
Case No. ADJ2124401
Regular
Apr 09, 2014

THOMAS ENGLE vs. COPY RIGHT PRINTING SYSTEMS, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal regarding a change of hearing location from Santa Barbara to Oxnard. The Board reasoned that the Division of Workers' Compensation has budgetary constraints and the inherent power to manage its calendars, including changing hearing locations due to space limitations at the Santa Barbara satellite office. The Board noted that CourtCall and other options exist for participants who have difficulty traveling to Oxnard.

RemovalPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCABDivision of Workers' CompensationDWCVenueDistrict OfficeSatellite OfficeCourtCall
References
1
Case No. GRO 0020213
Regular
May 28, 2008

Sandra K. Carnahan vs. Albertsons Stores, Inc., Specialty Risk Services

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as it was not a final order, but granted removal. The Board found substantial evidence, including the primary treating physician's report and a utilization review certification, supported the applicant's need for a urological consultation due to urinary problems secondary to her industrial back injury. Therefore, the Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and ordered the defendant to provide the applicant with a urological consultation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJFindings of FactUrological consultationLumbar injuryNeural innervationUrinary tract infectionsUtilization review
References
10
Case No. VNO 0492098
Regular
Feb 07, 2008

LAILA BOUCHER vs. 21ST CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AIG Claim Services, Inc.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration on its own motion due to a lack of substantial evidence supporting the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) findings on permanent disability and apportionment. The WCJ declared the medical reports regarding the applicant's back problems not credible, yet issued rating instructions not based on medical evidence. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including the potential appointment of an Agreed Medical Evaluator to supplement the record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationApportionmentPermanent DisabilitySubstantial EvidenceMedical TreatmentQualified Medical EvaluatorPrimary Treating PhysicianWCJAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
3
Case No. ADJ417505 (STK 173008)
Regular
Oct 07, 2008

MARSHA CRISWELL vs. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award of left ankle surgery for applicant Marsha Criswell. The Board found no substantial medical evidence connecting Criswell's current ankle condition to her 2000 industrial injury, noting the ankle injury resolved and a new injury occurred in 2005. Therefore, the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof for industrial causation of the current ankle problem.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationMedical CausationIndustrial InjuryLeft Ankle SurgeryAgreed Medical ExaminerTreating PhysicianPreponderance of the EvidenceReasonable Medical ProbabilityLay Testimony
References
8
Case No. ADJ9342987, ADJ9342988
Regular
Apr 21, 2014

DEBBIE MORRISON vs. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA/PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT, CORVEL

This case involves an applicant's petition for removal, seeking a change of venue to a Santa Barbara office. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's report. The WCAB explained that the Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC) dictates office locations based on budgetary constraints and can calendar hearings at different offices due to limited resources. The applicant may petition for a change of venue to Oxnard.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDivision of Workers' CompensationVenueSatellite FacilityIrreparable HarmAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code § 138.2(b)Labor Code § 5501.5Goleta District Office
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 156 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