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. ADJ8493192, ADJ8386046
Regular
Feb 05, 2016

HECTOR CAMPOS vs. CELL-CRETE CORPORATION, OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., INFRASOURCE, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves applicant Hector Campos seeking reconsideration of a Findings and Award concerning cumulative injuries sustained while employed by Cell-Crete Corporation and Infrasource. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) found applicant sustained a curable injury at Cell-Crete but no injury at Infrasource. Applicant argued improper consolidation and need for further discovery, while Cell-Crete asserted a post-termination defense and challenged the WCJ's reliance on an Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinion. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petitions and answers, ultimately adopting the WCJ's report and denying reconsideration, affirming the original Findings and Award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCell-Crete CorporationOld Republic General Insurance CorporationGallagher Bassett ServicesInc.InfrasourceOld Republic Insurance CompanyADJ8493192ADJ8386046Deputy Commissioner
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stanley v. Amalithone Realty, Inc.

The case involves plaintiffs Susan Scott Stanley and Michael C. Stanley suing Amalithone Realty, Inc., and Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Local One, seeking the removal of a cell phone tower from a building rooftop and damages for common-law nuisance, trespass, and related torts. Plaintiffs alleged experiencing various health issues attributed to radio frequency radiation emitted from the tower. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting federal preemption, failure to join an indispensable party, and failure to state a valid cause of action. The court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that AT&T Wireless Services Inc., the tower's owner and operator, was an indispensable party whose absence necessitated dismissal. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiffs failed to adequately state causes of action for private nuisance, trespass, unlawful taking, misrepresentation, prima facie tort, strict liability, assault and battery, or vicarious liability, primarily because the cell tower operated in compliance with FCC regulations and the defendants lacked control over its operation.

NuisanceTrespassCell TowerRF RadiationFederal PreemptionIndispensable PartyCPLR 3211Telecommunications ActFCC RegulationsIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
References
66
Case No. ADJ8386046, ADJ8493192
Regular
Oct 13, 2015

HECTOR CAMPOS vs. CELL-CRETE CORPORATION, OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., INFRASOURCE, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by both the applicant and the defendant, Cell-Crete, concerning a decision issued on July 22, 2015. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted reconsideration to allow for a more thorough review of the factual and legal issues presented. This decision is necessary to ensure a just and reasoned outcome after a complete understanding of the record. All further correspondence related to the petitions must be filed directly with the WCAB Commissioners' office.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONCELL-CRETE CORPORATIONOLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATIONGALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES INCINFRASOURCEADJ8386046ADJ8493192San Francisco District OfficeOPINION AND ORDER
References
0
Case No. ADJ6657993
Regular
Oct 04, 2010

Fred Banales vs. Bank of America, Gallagher Bassett

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision that denied applicant Fred Banales' claim for industrial injury. The WCAB found that the administrative law judge (WCJ) may have improperly focused on the applicant's cell phone use and the accident occurring on a public street, rather than the potential special risk exception to the going-and-coming rule. The Board rescinded the prior findings and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings, including the admission of additional evidence like the police report, to determine if the employer's parking lot exit posed a special risk.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Risk ExceptionParking Lot ExitPublic StreetCell Phone UsageTraffic AccidentReconsiderationFindings of Fact
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05570 [187 AD3d 458]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2020

Matter of A.M.A. (Anggeluz A.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order of fact-finding and disposition from the Supreme Court, New York County. The Supreme Court found that the respondent mother neglected the child Kimberly and derivatively neglected two other children. The findings were based on a preponderance of evidence showing the mother used excessive corporal punishment on Kimberly with a mop-pole, causing a fracture, and threatening her. The incident was witnessed and partially recorded by another child, and supported by testimony from a caseworker and police officer, as well as medical records. The court also found proper foundation for the admission of a cell phone video and that the mother's right to counsel was not deprived.

Child NeglectCorporal PunishmentDerivative NeglectFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewEvidence AdmissibilityOut-of-Court StatementsCell Phone VideoParental ObligationsRight to Counsel
References
7
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03095 [217 AD3d 1346]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2023

People v. Cleveland

Defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of kidnapping and robbery. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reviewed several contentions, including the denial of substitution of counsel, the victim's in-court identification, and the legal sufficiency of the evidence. The court found no error in the County Court's rulings regarding counsel substitution and the victim's identification. It also concluded that the evidence, including DNA, fingerprint, and cell phone data, was legally sufficient to establish defendant's identity. While rejecting defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the court exercised its discretion to modify the sentence, directing all sentences to run concurrently, deeming the original consecutive sentences unduly harsh.

Kidnapping Second DegreeRobbery First DegreeRobbery Second DegreeAppellate Division Fourth DepartmentJury Verdict ReviewSubstitution of CounselIn-Court IdentificationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceDNA EvidenceFingerprint Evidence
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2010

People v. Lenihan

On July 8, 2010, Karon Lenihan was convicted of second-degree murder. Lenihan moved to set aside the verdict, arguing errors in precluding cross-examination on witnesses' alleged gang affiliation and allowing a rebuttal witness without proper notice. The court, presided over by Darrell L. Gavrin, J., denied the motion on September 20, 2010, upholding the jury's verdict. The judge found the gang affiliation argument lacked a good faith basis and was speculative. Furthermore, the court ruled that allowing the prosecution's rebuttal witness, Andrew Searfoss, regarding cell phone tower locations was a proper exercise of discretion, especially given a granted three-day adjournment, and did not violate due process.

Criminal ProcedureVerdict ChallengeEvidentiary RulingsWitness CredibilityPrejudiceConstitutional RightsConfrontation ClauseAlibi NoticeJudicial DiscretionHomicide
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Delprince v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co.

Petitioner Richard J. DelPrince sought judicial review of an arbitration award that upheld his discharge from Norfolk Southern Railway Company. DelPrince was terminated for violating a company rule concerning cellphone usage on a moving train after he used his personal phone to report an issue and then forgot to turn it off. He appealed the dismissal to Public Law Board No. 7717, which sustained the decision. DelPrince then filed a lawsuit, arguing the Board's decision should be set aside due to non-compliance with the Railway Labor Act, exceeding its jurisdiction, or fraud. The Court, however, found no sufficient grounds to vacate the arbitration award under the RLA's narrow scope of judicial review. Consequently, the motion to dismiss filed by Norfolk Southern was granted, leading to the closure of the case in favor of the Respondent.

Railway Labor ActArbitration AwardJudicial ReviewEmployment DischargeCellphone PolicyLocomotive EngineerMinor DisputeScope of ReviewFraud AllegationsCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
31
Case No. B371-2013, B372-2013
Regular Panel Decision

People v. English

The defendant was arrested for attempted kidnapping and compelling a 14-year-old to engage in prostitution. Incident to the arrest, an iPhone was seized and searched under warrant B371-2013, and an apartment was searched under warrant B372-2013. The defendant moved to controvert both search warrants. The court denied the motion regarding B371-2013, finding the search of the cell phone's contents did not exceed the warrant's scope given the flexibility afforded in digital searches and the plain view doctrine for other incriminating evidence. However, the court granted in part the motion regarding B372-2013, ruling that the warrant for the apartment's electronic devices lacked the necessary specificity under the Fourth Amendment, leading to the suppression of evidence seized from those devices. Evidence seized under the valid portions of B372-2013 (non-electronic items like a holster and ammunition) was deemed admissible.

Search warrantFourth AmendmentCell phone searchElectronic device searchParticularity requirementProbable causeSuppression of evidencePlain view doctrineDigital forensicsAttempted kidnapping
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2012

DeFina v. Meenan Oil Co.

Plaintiff Anthony DeFina sued Meenan Oil Company, Tom Cronau, and Elena Zazzera, alleging age discrimination and hostile work environment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York Human Rights Law. DeFina, terminated at age 53, claimed age discrimination when he was fired in March 2009. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting DeFina was terminated due to misconduct, including excessive corporate cell phone use and disruptive behavior at an oil terminal. The court found insufficient evidence for age discrimination, noting that defendants hired many older drivers and that the decision-makers were also in the protected age class. Consequently, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim, dismissing it without prejudice.

Age DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentADEAEmployment TerminationEmployee MisconductCell Phone PolicyWorkplace ComplaintsSimilarly Situated EmployeesPretext
References
64
Showing 1-10 of 108 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