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. 2021 NY Slip Op 06069 [199 AD3d 438]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2021

Matter of Ashanti v. New York City Conflicts of Interest Bd.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed the determination of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, finding that petitioner Karl J. Ashanti violated New York City Charter and City rule provisions. Ashanti was ordered to pay an aggregate civil penalty of $8,500. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that Ashanti used his City position to gain personal advantage in negotiations on behalf of his wife and utilized City letterhead to advance a legal position contrary to the City's interests. The court rejected the petitioner's due process and agency bias claims, concluding that the penalty imposed did not shock the conscience.

Conflicts of InterestPublic OfficialsEthical ViolationsCivil PenaltyDue ProcessAgency BiasSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility Determinations
References
4
Case No. ADJ13220428; ADJ11736712
Regular
Sep 24, 2025

MATTHEW BAILEY vs. HOTLINE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Matthew Bailey's petition to disqualify the administrative law judge (WCJ). The petition alleged the WCJ was considering sanctions for the applicant's attorney's trial absence due to a calendar conflict and had advised accepting a settlement. The WCAB found the allegations lacked specific facts and did not demonstrate bias or an unqualified opinion on the merits, consistent with legal standards for disqualification. The applicant's attorney was admonished for failing to provide adequate facts and for not promptly notifying the court of calendar conflicts.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJCalendar ConflictSettlement OfferLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641BiasEnmityAffidavitDeclaration
References
7
Case No. AHM 0109985
Regular
Aug 04, 2008

JOSE PERDOMO vs. ABC SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., ESIS

This case involves a dispute over a deposition scheduled by applicant's counsel, which defense counsel claims was erroneously set and misrepresented. The defendant sought removal of an order that took the case off calendar, alleging prejudice from applicant's counsel's representations. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the off-calendar order, and returned the matter to the trial level to determine the conflicting factual claims regarding the deposition.

Petition for RemovalOrder Taking Off CalendarAppirionWCJDepositionApplicant CounselDefense CounselVerified AnswerReport and RecommendationTrial Level
References
0
Case No. ADJ4398425 (LAO 0875977) ADJ1647933 (LAO 0867627)
Regular
Jul 21, 2010

PHYLLIS MOSS vs. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP, Chubb Services Corporation

This case involves a dispute over a mandatory settlement conference (MSC) where both parties claim the other was absent or improperly handled the proceedings. The Appeals Board granted removal due to conflicting records and confusing circumstances surrounding the MSC and a subsequent trial setting. The Board found the WCJ erred by setting the matter for trial after issuing an order taking it off calendar, despite conflicting accounts of attorney appearances. Consequently, the scheduled trial was converted to a status conference for further proceedings.

Petition for removalMandatory settlement conferenceOrder off calendarMinutes of HearingPre-Trial Conference StatementAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Status conferenceRemandedWCJWCAB
References
0
Case No. G0291404
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

Matter of Toliver v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision

The claimant, Claude Dean, suffered a compensable right shoulder injury on July 10, 2019. A subsequent incident on February 23, 2021, led to a dispute regarding a causally related further disability to the same shoulder. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found no causal relationship for the 2021 incident and closed the case. However, conflicting medical evidence, specifically consultant reports from Dr. Lallana and Dr. Reback, presented differing opinions on the causal connection. Upon review, the Board Panel determined that the WCLJ's decision was premature due to an incomplete record and the absence of testimony, especially given the unresolved medical conflict. Consequently, the Board Panel rescinded the WCLJ's decision and restored the case to the trial calendar to further develop the record on the issue of causally related disability from the February 23, 2021 incident, and for the WCLJ to issue a new decision.

Right Shoulder InjuryCausally Related DisabilityConflicting Medical EvidenceWCLJ Decision RescindedCase Restored to Trial CalendarRecord DevelopmentAttorney AppealDate of Injury DisputeMedical Consultant ReportAdministrative Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Almanzar v. Rye Ridge Realty Co.

Plaintiffs initiated a negligence action in 1982 against Rye Ridge Realty, Veemac Elevator, and Accessories By Pearl after an elevator fall in 1981, leading to multiple injuries. The case was marked off the calendar in 1993 due to a plaintiff's unavailability and subsequently dismissed in 1994 under CPLR 3404 for failure to restore within one year. Plaintiffs' motion to restore the action in 1997, citing excuses like a pending workers' compensation claim and medical treatment, was granted by the motion court. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the four criteria for restoration: a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for delay, lack of intent to abandon, and no prejudice to the non-moving party. Consequently, the action was dismissed, and a subsequent appeal for renewal and reargument was dismissed as academic.

NegligencePersonal InjuryElevator AccidentMotion to RestoreAction DismissalCPLR 3404Failure to ProsecutePresumption of AbandonmentPrejudiceAppellate Reversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2004

Zenteno v. Geils

The defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted the plaintiff's motion to restore a personal injury action to the trial calendar and for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for delay, citing extensive medical evaluations and difficulties obtaining authorization from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The court also determined that the defendants were not prejudiced by the restoration. Furthermore, an alleged agreement to proceed to arbitration was deemed unenforceable due to non-compliance with CPLR 2104 "open court" requirements. Finally, the Supreme Court's decision to grant leave for a supplemental bill of particulars was upheld, as it pertained to continuing consequences of existing injuries rather than new ones, aligning with CPLR 3043 [b].

Personal InjuryTrial Calendar RestorationSupplemental Bill of ParticularsArbitration Agreement EnforcementCPLR 2104CPLR 3043Medical ExaminationsWorkers' Compensation IssuesAppellate ReviewProcedural Motion
References
20
Case No. ADJ364166 (LAO 0879384) ADJ3925942 (LAO 0881103)
Regular
Dec 29, 2015

CLIBORIO MAYORGA vs. DEXTER AXLE CHASSIS GROUP, AIG, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant Dexter Axle's Petition for Removal of an Order Taking Off Calendar (OTOC). The OTOC allowed the applicant to conduct further discovery regarding a change in his permanent disability. Defendant argued this conflicted with a prior Appeals Board decision limiting discovery to apportionment. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant if removal was denied, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Therefore, removal was not granted.

Petition for RemovalOrder Taking Off CalendarWCJPermanent DisabilityApportionmentDiscoverySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationExtraordinary Remedy
References
2
Case No. ADJ11422067, ADJ11422915
Regular
Nov 30, 2018

ESTHER BARRIENTOS (DIAZ) vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - IHSS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding a Protective Order that excused the applicant and her attorney from a deposition due to a claimed calendar conflict. The Board rescinded the Protective Order, agreeing with the WCJ's report that the matter should be returned for further proceedings. This decision was based on the WCJ's subsequent realization of a lack of full knowledge of prior dealings between the parties. The Board emphasized that expressions of opinion by a judge are not evidence of bias, and erroneous rulings do not necessitate disqualification.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalProtective OrderDepositionDue ProcessCalendar ConflictPetition to QuashWCJ Report and RecommendationSubstantial JusticeDisqualification of WCJ
References
0
Case No. ADJ9282921
Regular
Sep 14, 2015

AFIGENIO ALVAREZ vs. GRILL CONCEPTS, INC., STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involved an applicant whose workers' compensation claim was dismissed for failure to appear at trial. The applicant's counsel argued a calendar conflict and a mistaken belief about the trial time, while the applicant himself also mistakenly believed the trial was scheduled later. Crucially, the record did not show proper service of the trial notice on either the applicant or his attorney. Therefore, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the dismissal order, and returned the case for further proceedings due to the lack of due process.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing CaseFailure to AppearAttorney Calendar ConflictMistaken BeliefCumulative InjuryJanitorHead InjuryNeck InjuryBack Injury
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,948 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