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. ADJ925487 (MON 0224419) MF ADJ4488262 (MON 0247350)
Regular
Aug 03, 2015

Frances Wade vs. CEDAR-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEMS, permissibly self-insured, administered by TRISTAR CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Cedars-Sinai Health Systems' petition for reconsideration. The employer sought to reduce a $96.5\%$ permanent disability award to Frances Wade, citing overlap with a prior injury and internal medical issues. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding the award appropriate and the temporary disability indemnity correctly calculated. The Board also declined to consider supplemental filings from the defendant.

WadeCedar-SinaiTristar ClaimsClinical Partner/LVNindustrial injuriesbackright hippsychehypertensioncardiovascular
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ganthier v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Healthy System

Esther Ganthier sued North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Susan Tobin, GreyStone Staffing, Inc., and Karen Westerlind alleging race and national origin discrimination, First Amendment retaliation, and conspiracy. GreyStone and Westerlind moved to dismiss, while Ganthier cross-moved for leave to amend her complaint. The Court granted the motion to dismiss all claims against GreyStone and Westerlind, finding individuals are not liable under Title VII and GreyStone was not named in the EEOC charge. It also dismissed Section 1981, First Amendment retaliation, and conspiracy claims due to pleading deficiencies. Consequently, the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state and city human rights laws against the dismissed defendants and denied Ganthier's cross-motion to amend as futile, instructing to amend the caption to reflect only North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System and Susan Tobin as defendants.

DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationFirst Amendment RetaliationConspiracyMotion to DismissLeave to AmendTitle VII ClaimsSection 1981 ClaimsFederal Civil Procedure Rules
References
34
Case No. ADJ114638 (VNO 0364765)
Regular
Apr 13, 2009

Adriana Modlin vs. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior decision regarding Adriana Modlin's claim against Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Defendant Cedars-Sinai sought reconsideration, arguing the judge incorrectly applied the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, failed to account for indemnity overpayments and commutations, and miscalculated indemnity rates. The Board remanded the case to the trial level for further proceedings to address these issues, including clarifying indemnity payment records and potentially re-evaluating the correct rating schedule.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleIndemnityCommutationCreditThird Party RecoveryAttorney's Fees
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2001

MacRo v. Independent Health Ass'n, Inc.

Plaintiffs Cheryl Macro and Kim Zastrow, insured under a group health contract with Independent Health through the Tonawanda City School District, initiated a class action in state court to challenge Independent Health's modification of infertility treatment coverage. Defendant Independent Health removed the case to federal court, asserting ERISA preemption. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that their claims fell under New York Insurance Law, which is exempt from ERISA preemption by the saving clause, and that their health plan qualified as a 'governmental plan' also exempt from ERISA. The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion, concluding that the claims were indeed saved from ERISA preemption and that the plan was exempt, thus rendering federal subject matter jurisdiction absent. The court accordingly remanded the case back to New York State Supreme Court.

Infertility CoverageHealth Insurance DisputesERISA PreemptionSaving ClauseGovernmental PlansRemoval to Federal CourtSubject Matter JurisdictionNew York Insurance LawClass Action LitigationEmployee Benefits Plan
References
31
Case No. ADJ9198656; ADJ9192994
Regular
Jul 07, 2025

JEANETTE LIRA vs. COTTAGE HEALTH SYSTEM, PSI, SANSUM SANTA BARBARA MEDICAL, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendants Cottage Health System and Zurich American Insurance Company sought reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Award. Cottage Health contended it was incorrectly identified as the liable employer instead of Sansum Santa Barbara Medical, insured by Zurich. Zurich argued there were multiple injuries or that compensation was barred by the statute of limitations. The Appeals Board denied Zurich's petition, granted Cottage Health's petition, and amended the award to reflect Sansum Santa Barbara Medical, insured by Zurich American Insurance Company, as the liable party.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJeanette LiraCottage Health SystemGallagher BassettZurich American Insurance CompanySansum Santa Barbara MedicalAdjudication NumbersJoint Findings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationComplex Regional Pain Syndrome
References
6
Case No. 99 Civ. 11886 WCC
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2000

Leonard v. DUTCHESS CTY. DEPT. OF HEALTH

Plaintiffs, including restaurant and bowling center owners and the National Smokers Alliance, challenged smoking regulations promulgated by the Dutchess County Department of Health and Board of Health. They alleged violations of equal protection, free speech, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York State Constitution, and Article 78. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction, while plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and injunctive relief. The court, treating both as motions for summary judgment, found that the Board of Health exceeded its authority under the New York State separation of powers doctrine by enacting regulations that balanced economic, social, and privacy interests, rather than solely health concerns. Specifically, the court noted the Board's consideration of non-health factors, the non-interstitial nature of the regulations compared to state law, and the County Legislature's prior failure to pass similar legislation. Consequently, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and permanently enjoined the defendants from enforcing the challenged smoking regulations.

Smoking RegulationsPublic Health LawSeparation of PowersAdministrative Agency OverreachSummary JudgmentInjunctive ReliefDutchess CountyClean Indoor Air ActConstitutional LawArticle 78
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hinterberger v. Catholic Health System, Inc.

This is a decision and order by Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio regarding various motions in a collective action and class action lawsuit. Plaintiffs, non-exempt hourly employees, allege that Defendants (health care organizations under Catholic Health System) violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) by not paying for work performed during meal breaks, before/after shifts, and during training sessions. The court addresses Defendants' motion to compel discovery, Plaintiffs' cross-motion for a protective order, and Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to replead negligent misrepresentation and conversion claims. The court grants in part and denies in part the motion to compel, denies the protective order, and denies the motion to amend due to futility of the proposed negligent misrepresentation and conversion claims. The court also grants Defendants' request for attorney's fees related to the motion to compel due to Plaintiffs' unjustified non-compliance with discovery.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeOvertime PayMeal Break PolicyDiscovery SanctionsMotion to CompelProtective OrderMotion to AmendNegligent Misrepresentation
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington Heights-West Harlem-Inwood Mental Health Council, Inc. v. District 1199, National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees, RWDSU

This case involves a dispute between District 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees, and Washington Heights-West Harlem-Inwood Mental Health Council, Inc. The union sought to enforce an arbitration award requiring the Council to rehire and provide back pay to an employee, Edward Lane. The Council cross-moved to vacate the award, arguing that no valid collective bargaining agreement with an arbitration clause existed between the parties. Although the parties had acted under the terms of a proposed agreement for a period, including processing some grievances and wage increases, no formal, signed contract had ever been executed. Citing recent appellate court decisions emphasizing contract formalism over implied intent, the District Court granted the Council's motion to vacate the arbitration award and denied the union's motion to enforce it, concluding that without a signed agreement, there was no contractual duty to arbitrate.

Arbitration AwardSummary JudgmentContract FormationCollective BargainingLabor DisputeContract FormalismVacation of AwardEnforcement of AwardMeeting of the MindsFederal Court
References
23
Case No. ADJ1153404 (BAK 0112784)
Regular
May 28, 2009

Barbara Clark vs. SAN JOAQUIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM

This case involves an applicant, Barbara Clark, whose petition for writ of review was denied by the Court of Appeal. The Court found her petition frivolous and intended to harass the defendant, San Joaquin Community Hospital (represented by Adventist Health System). Consequently, the Court remanded the matter to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to award attorney fees and costs against Clark. The WCAB, finding the requested fees and costs reasonable, awarded Adventist Health and its attorney $5,266.47 against Barbara Clark.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemittiturPetition for Writ of ReviewFrivolous PetitionSanctionsAttorney FeesCostsUnreasonable DelayMeritless PetitionLabor Code Section 5801
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leary v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Dorothy Leary, a part-time junior public health nurse for the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, injured her left knee after slipping on stairs due to wet shoes from snow outside. Her application for disability retirement benefits was denied by the Board of Trustees of the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, following a recommendation from the Medical Board that her injuries were not sustained as an 'accident' under Retirement and Social Security Law § 605. Leary challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Supreme Court initially denied. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, granted Leary's petition, annulled the Board's determination, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, concluding that her fall constituted an accident.

Workers' CompensationDisability RetirementPublic Health NurseSlip and Fall InjuryAccident DefinitionCPLR Article 78Medical Board ReviewAppellate ReversalRetirement and Social Security LawKings County Supreme Court
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,362 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