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. ADJ6905217
Regular
Jun 16, 2014

CANDACE THOMPSON vs. 5005 HILLSDALE, INC., dba HILLSDALE HOME, FIRSTCOMP OMAHA for ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Candace Thompson, likely seeking review or reconsideration of a prior decision or ruling. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition and the associated report from the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCAB has denied Thompson's Petition for Removal, adopting the reasoning presented in the WCJ's report. Therefore, the matter will not proceed further at this removal stage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeDenial of RemovalADJ69052175005 Hillsdale IncHillsdale HomeFirstcomp OmahaEndurance Insurance CompanyCandace Thompson
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2020

Matter of Thompson v. Hayduscko

Claimant Gloria Thompson, a licensed home health aide, was initially employed by M.E.A. Healthcare Services. She was later privately hired by Clare Hayduscko to provide nursing services to Eleanor Adamec, working over 40 hours per week and paid with Adamec's funds. In June 2007, Thompson injured her right ankle while caring for Adamec and filed a workers' compensation claim against Hayduscko, who she named as her employer. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) twice determined that Thompson was an independent contractor, disallowing the claim. However, the full Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding Thompson to be a domestic worker engaged in covered employment and Hayduscko to be her employer, establishing the claim for accidental injury. Hayduscko appealed this Board decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Board's determination of an employer-employee relationship is not a final, appealable order as it does not resolve all substantive issues in the claim and thus does not present a threshold legal issue for review prior to the Board's final determination.

Workers' Compensation LawEmployer-Employee DisputeIndependent Contractor StatusDomestic Worker DefinitionJurisdictionAppeal DismissalNon-Final DecisionAppellate Review LimitationsWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionHome Healthcare Services
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thompson v. Bosswick

Michael Thompson, a former estate manager for the Riverside Trust, sued its trustees Mark Bosswick and Sanford E. Ehrenkranz, and manager Peter Lambert. Thompson alleged defamation, tortious interference with prospective business and contractual relations, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract related to a confidentiality agreement, breach of contract for severance pay, negligent misrepresentation, and tortious interference with employment relations. He claimed Lambert defamed him by spreading false information about kickbacks and misconduct to employment agencies and the Trust's principals, costing him job opportunities. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion on all counts except for the defamation claim, which was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, defamation claims concerning statements to Vincent Minuto and Lynn Warren survived, while others were dismissed due to lack of evidence or qualified privilege.

DefamationSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceBreach of ContractAt-Will EmploymentQualified PrivilegeNegligent MisrepresentationEmployment LawSlanderKickbacks
References
51
Case No. ADJ4464746 (SAC 0358795)
Regular
Oct 07, 2014

ANDREW THOMPSON (Deceased), EDITH THOMPSON (Spouse) vs. HUHTAMAKI AMERICAS, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

This case concerns a workers' compensation death benefit claim filed by Edith Thompson, widow of Andrew Thompson, who died from asbestos exposure. The defendant sought reconsideration of a prior ruling that her claim was not time-barred. The Board rescinded the prior decision, finding that Labor Code section 5406.5 requires death benefit claims for asbestos-related deaths to be filed within one year of the date of death. Edith Thompson's application, filed over a year after her husband's death, was therefore dismissed as untimely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAndrew ThompsonEdith ThompsonHuhtamaki AmericasInc.ACE American Insurance Co.toxic exposureasbestoscumulative traumadeath benefits
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 1998

Wilkinson v. Planning Board of the Town of Thompson

The petitioners challenged the Town of Thompson's Planning Board and Town Board's environmental determination and approvals for a Wal-Mart 'super-center' project, which included a negative declaration of environmental impact, site plan approval, rezoning, and proposed abandonment of a road. The Supreme Court dismissed their petitions. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that the Planning Board's negative declaration was not arbitrary or capricious, as it conducted a 'hard look' at environmental concerns and provided a 'reasoned elaboration.' The court also ruled that the mitigating measures incorporated by Wal-Mart during the review process did not constitute an impermissible conditioned negative declaration, as they were voluntary adjustments made to address identified concerns. Finally, the court agreed that the abandonment of Lanahans Road was justified under Highway Law § 212-a.

Environmental ReviewSite Plan ApprovalSubdivision ApprovalNegative DeclarationConditioned Negative DeclarationSEQRALand UseZoningRoad AbandonmentWal-Mart
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp.

Plaintiff Thompson, a general employee of ATS, was injured while working exclusively for defendant Grumman. After receiving workers' compensation benefits from ATS, Thompson initiated a negligence action against Grumman, which asserted special employment as an affirmative defense. The Supreme Court initially denied Grumman's motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, concluding Thompson was a special employee due to Grumman's comprehensive control over his work duties. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, ruling that the undisputed facts established Grumman's exclusive daily control over Thompson for nearly a year, making him a special employee as a matter of law. Consequently, Thompson's negligence action against Grumman is barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Law.

Special EmploymentWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentControl TestGeneral EmployeeLent EmployeeNegligence ActionAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2012

Thompson v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The defendants, Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority, MTA Staten Island Railway, and Tyesha Witt, appealed a Supreme Court order denying their motion for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury action as time-barred. The plaintiff's decedent was injured in a railway accident in February 2008 and filed a complaint in March 2009. The defendants argued the action was time-barred under Public Authorities Law § 1276, which mandates a one-year-and-30-day statute of limitations. The plaintiff, Sarah Thompson, argued the statute of limitations was tolled under CPLR 208 due to the decedent's alleged

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsTime-barredCPLR 208Insanity TollPublic Authorities LawRailway AccidentAppellate ReviewLegal Procedure
References
9
Case No. ADJ7807167
Regular
Feb 18, 2014

GREGORY THOMPSON (Deceased), SVETLANA THOMPSON (Dependent) vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR - HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSTION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case concerns Gregory Thompson's workers' compensation claim, with his dependent Svetlana Thompson as applicant. The defendant sought reconsideration of a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition for reconsideration to allow further study of the factual and legal issues. All future filings in this matter must be submitted in writing to the WCAB Commissioners' office, not to any district office or via e-filing.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONSTATUTORY TIME CONSTRAINTSFACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUESJUST AND REASONED DECISIONOFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERSELECTRONIC ADJUDICATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Porter v. THOMPSON ROOFING AND SHEET METAL CO.

Petitioner United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, Local Union No. 74 and Donald Porter sought to confirm an arbitration award against Thompson Roofing and Sheet Metal Company, Inc. under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Thompson Roofing opposed the motion, arguing the arbitration process was flawed and jurisdiction was lacking. However, Thompson Roofing failed to move to vacate the arbitration award within the 90-day statute of limitations as prescribed by New York CPLR § 7511(a). Citing precedent from the Second Circuit (Local 802), the court ruled that the failure to challenge an arbitration award within the statutory period precludes raising affirmative defenses in a subsequent action to enforce the award. Consequently, the court granted the Union's motion for summary judgment and denied Thompson Roofing's motion, thereby confirming the arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardLabor LawSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsLMRA Section 301Affirmative DefensesWaiverCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal Court JurisdictionConfirmation of Award
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2007

Thompson v. 1701 Corp.

Plaintiff Brenton Thompson, a maintenance worker for Kentucky Fried Chicken, was injured after falling from a six-foot A-frame ladder while replacing or tightening a screw in a door closer. He and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit against the owner of the premises, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Thompson was performing routine maintenance and not an activity protected under Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact to counter the defendant's prima facie entitlement to judgment.

Personal injuryLadder accidentRoutine maintenanceSummary judgmentLabor Law § 240 (1)Premises liabilityAppellate reviewProperty ownerWorkplace injuryNegligence
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 106 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