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. 00-CR-159A, 00-CR-185A
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Boorman

This case concerns the government's appeal of a Magistrate Judge's decision to release defendant Russell James Boorman on bail, despite multiple indictments for drug trafficking and firearm offenses. Defendant Boorman was initially indicted on drug charges (00-CR-159A) and subsequently on additional drug and weapon charges found during his arrest (00-CR-185A). Magistrate Judge Foschio denied the government's detention motions and set bail for both indictments. District Judge Arcara conducted a de novo review, considering the nature of the offenses, the weight of evidence, and the defendant's extensive criminal history, which included prior violent and drug-related felony convictions, some committed while under court supervision. The Court found clear and convincing evidence that no conditions would reasonably assure community safety, given the defendant's violent past and likelihood to re-offend, thereby revoking the release orders and ordering detention.

Pretrial detentionDrug traffickingMethamphetamineMarijuanaFirearm possessionCriminal historyViolent behaviorRebuttable presumptionDanger to communityBail revocation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Scott (Commr. of Labor)

CR England Inc. appealed eight decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled that CR was liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions for its truck drivers, classified as employees rather than independent contractors. CR argued that the claimants did not engage in covered employment in New York and that its hearing requests for two claimants were untimely. The Court found the covered employment argument unpreserved and affirmed the Board's timeliness determinations. The Court also affirmed the Board's finding of an employer-employee relationship, citing substantial evidence of CR's control over the drivers' work methods beyond mere regulatory compliance.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationLabor LawAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityTrucking IndustryAdministrative LawTimeliness of Appeal
References
15
Case No. SI 14 Cr. 68(KBF)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2014

United States v. Ulbricht

This Opinion & Order addresses motions in limine filed by both the Government and defendant Ross Ulbricht in case SI 14 Cr. 68(KBF). Ulbricht is charged with narcotics trafficking, computer hacking, fraudulent identification documents, and running a continuing criminal enterprise related to the online marketplace Silk Road. The Court denied Ulbricht's motions to preclude evidence concerning Silk Road product listings, murder-for-hire solicitations, and fraudulent identification documents, finding them relevant to the charged offenses and Ulbricht's identity. Conversely, the Court granted Ulbricht's motion to preclude certain miscellaneous exhibits and denied the Government's motion to admit evidence of uncharged contraband, citing irrelevance and undue prejudice. The Government's motions regarding potential consequences of conviction and defendant's political views were denied as moot.

Silk RoadRoss UlbrichtMotions In LimineEvidence AdmissibilityNarcotics TraffickingComputer Hacking ConspiracyFraudulent Identification DocumentsMurder-for-Hire SolicitationRule 404(b) EvidenceRule 403 Balancing
References
58
Case No. ADJ9784410, ADJ9997593, ADJ9784413
Regular
Jul 18, 2018

JULIO V. JIMENEZ vs. CR & R, XL SPECIALTY INS.

This case involves Julio Jimenez's workers' compensation claims against CR&R for injuries sustained while employed as a driver. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior WCJ's decisions, finding that Jimenez's claims were not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10), which generally prevents claims filed after termination. The Board found sufficient evidence that the employer had notice of or medical records documented the eye and finger injuries prior to termination, and that Jimenez reported the knee and foot injury from the truck fire to his supervisor. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and new decisions by the WCJ, as the record needed further development, particularly regarding medical causation and specific body parts claimed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)post-termination claimscumulative traumaspecific injuryreconsiderationrescinded decisionsfurther proceedingsmedical recordsnotice of injury
References
9
Case No. ADJ10575430
Regular
May 05, 2017

FERNANDO MENDOZA vs. CR&R INCORPORATED, XL INSURANCE AMERICA, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal in the case of *Mendoza v. CR&R Inc.* Removal is an extraordinary remedy, granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will occur and reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. The Board found that the defendant failed to demonstrate these criteria based on the Administrative Law Judge's report and analysis. Therefore, the petition was denied, allowing the case to proceed through the standard review process.

Petition for RemovalDeniedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportAdministrative Law JudgeExtraordinary RemedyADJ10575430
References
2
Case No. 92 Cr. 712
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1993

United States v. Wooden

Anthony Wooden, a postal carrier, appealed his conviction for obstructing and retarding mail under 18 U.S.C. § 1701. Magistrate Judge Kathleen A. Roberts had found Wooden guilty after nearly 950 pieces of unsorted, unsequenced, and stale mail were discovered in relay boxes on his route. Wooden admitted to delaying the mail with the intention of delivering it later but argued a lack of specific intent due to being an inefficient employee. District Judge Sweet, presiding over the appeal for the Southern District of New York, affirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal. The court found sufficient evidence that Wooden knowingly and willfully obstructed the mail, rejecting the defense's argument regarding specific intent.

Mail obstructionPostal carrierCriminal appealSufficiency of evidenceSpecific intent18 U.S.C. § 1701Federal Rules of Criminal ProcedureWillful misconductDelay of mailPostal Service
References
31
Case No. 01 CR 1121
Regular Panel Decision

Albanese v. United States

Elio Albanese, who pled guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to correct his sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. He claimed his attorney advised him to accept a plea agreement with a stipulated loss amount and failed to file a timely appeal regarding his Criminal History Category. The Court, presided over by Judge McMahon, denied the motion. The decision found that Albanese knowingly and voluntarily accepted the plea, and his claims of ineffective assistance regarding the loss amount were not supported by evidence or prejudice. Furthermore, his attorney affirmed that Albanese never instructed her to file an appeal.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel28 U.S.C. § 2255Plea AgreementSentencing GuidelinesCriminal History CategoryHobbs Act RobberyConspiracySecond Circuit RemandFederal Rules of Criminal ProcedureStipulated Loss Amount
References
39
Case No. 2016-1509 OR CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2018

People v. Nagler (Sandra)

Sandra Nagler appealed six judgments from the Justice Court of the Town of Wallkill, Orange County, primarily challenging her conviction for common-law driving while intoxicated (DWI). Following a nonjury trial, she was found guilty based on testimony from Trooper Brad Natalizio, who responded to an accident where Nagler admitted to falling asleep after consuming alcohol. The Justice Court initially sentenced Nagler to 45 days incarceration and three years' probation for the DWI conviction. On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, dismissed the appeals for other traffic infractions as abandoned. While upholding the legal sufficiency of the evidence for the DWI conviction, the Appellate Term found the 45-day jail sentence excessive, considering Nagler's community involvement and lack of prior criminal history. Consequently, the court modified the sentence, reducing the term of incarceration to time served while affirming the conviction.

Driving While IntoxicatedDUIDWIVehicle and Traffic LawAppellate ReviewSentence ModificationExcessive SentenceCommon-law DWIOrange CountyTown of Wallkill
References
23
Case No. 90 Cr. 203
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Baker

Nadine Baker appealed her conviction for petit theft at the Bronx Veterans Hospital, which stemmed from a dye-trapping operation. She was found guilty by a jury after being caught with visible and ultraviolet dye on her person, indicating she had handled stolen money. Baker challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the application of sentencing enhancements. The District Court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also upheld the sentencing enhancement for theft from a person, finding that the victims were vulnerable and the property was within their arm's reach.

Criminal LawPetit TheftSentencing GuidelinesSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewVeterans HospitalUndercover OperationCircumstantial EvidenceFalse StatementsVulnerable Victims
References
12
Case No. 01 CR 1121
Regular Panel Decision

Russo v. United States

Carmine Russo sought to correct his sentence via a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel regarding a five-level enhancement for intended loss in his plea agreement for conspiracy to commit robbery. The court dismissed the petition, first determining it was time-barred by the AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations, as it was filed after the September 14, 2003 deadline. Second, the court found the petition barred by Russo's knowing and voluntary waiver of appeal rights, which was part of his plea agreement for a sentence within the stipulated guidelines range. Lastly, the court rejected Russo's "actual innocence" claim concerning the intended loss calculation, concluding he understood and assented to the plea terms.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselPlea AgreementAppeal WaiverStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingActual Innocence ClaimSentencing GuidelinesIntended Loss EnhancementFederal Rules of Appellate Procedure
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 34 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