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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2002

Sharp v. Scandic Wall Ltd. Partnership

Gil Sharp, an elevator mechanic, sustained injuries on October 31, 1996, when an elevator car he was working on at 40 Wall Street fell 30 feet after he mistakenly cut supporting cables. He sued the premises owner, 40 Wall Street Development Associates, alleging violations of various Labor Law sections and OSHA regulations. The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss all claims, while Sharp cross-moved for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241-a, and to amend his bill of particulars. The court dismissed claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 241-a, 241 (6), and OSHA regulations. However, Sharp was granted summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), with the court finding the defendant liable for failing to provide adequate safety devices.

Elevator accidentPersonal injuryLabor Law § 240(1)Summary judgmentIndustrial CodeWorkplace safetyGravity-related hazardConstruction site accidentFall from heightOwner liability
References
5
Case No. ADJ10477247
Regular
Oct 31, 2017

ESTELA WALLE vs. THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP

Here's a summary of the two cases for a lawyer, in max four sentences each: **Case 1: Estela Walle vs. The Permanente Medical Group (ADJ10477247)** The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain a back injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The Board gave significant weight to the WCJ's credibility determination, finding no substantial evidence to warrant overturning it. Therefore, the applicant was awarded nothing on her claim. **Case 2: Estela Walle vs. The Permanente Medical Group (ADJ8620015, ADJ9183471)** The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's award for psychiatric injury and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board found the analysis of whether the injury was predominantly caused by employment events, and specifically by lawful, good faith personnel actions, to be inadequate under *Rolda*. Further development of the record is required to clarify the events of May 21, 2012, and to determine the precise causal contribution of employment-related factors versus good faith personnel actions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderApplicantInjury Arising Out of and In the Course of EmploymentAOE/COEBack InjuryWCJCredibility DeterminationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
1
Case No. ADJ6810697
Regular
Sep 02, 2010

KIP WALLS vs. DEVCON CONSTRUCTION, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant, Kip Walls, who claimed an injury to his right knee on May 1, 2008, while working for Devcon Construction. The applicant's claim was based on a fall at work, but his supervisor, Mr. Demetrus, had no recollection of a specific injury being reported, noting only that the applicant's knee was hurting from an old injury. Medical records from Watsonville Hospital and prior treatment also indicated no specific work-related injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the judge's determination that the applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment, largely based on the credibility of witnesses and the conflicting medical evidence.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationCredibility FindingSubstantial EvidenceIndustrial InjuryWorkers' Compensation JudgeIncident ReportMedical RecordsWatsonville HospitalDr. Lewis
References
4
Case No. ADJ8066822
Regular
May 30, 2019

SCOTT WALL vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case concerns a deputy sheriff sergeant, Scott Wall, who alleges discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. Wall was denied a requested transfer to a patrol division while on injury leave, despite having the seniority for it. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding that the County of Sacramento discriminated against Wall by denying the transfer, as less senior employees were transferred. The employer's defense of business necessity was rejected because the County had other options to fill the critical patrol positions.

Labor Code section 132aDiscriminationRetaliationTransfer denialSeniorityBusiness necessityPrima facie caseDisadvantageous treatmentWCJReconsideration
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2002

Machado v. City of New York

The defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, regarding damages for personal injuries. The case involved a construction worker who sustained severe injuries, including a spinal fracture and knee destruction, after a trench wall collapse in 1996, for which he obtained summary judgment against the City under Labor Law § 240. The Supreme Court had granted the plaintiff's motion to set aside the jury's inadequate verdict on damages, ordering a new trial unless the City agreed to increased awards for past and future pain and suffering. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, agreeing that the jury's award deviated materially from reasonable compensation. This decision upholds the conditional directive for a new trial on damages.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentTrench CollapseLabor LawDamagesPain and SufferingJury VerdictAppellate ReviewNew TrialSpinal Fracture
References
5
Case No. ADJ6836629
Regular
Oct 01, 2013

EVERSON WALLS vs. BALTIMORE RAVENS fka CLEVELAND BROWNS, NEW YORK GIANTS, PMA INSURANCE GROUP c/o GALLAGHER BASSETT and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA c/o CHARTIS CLAIMS INC., DALLAS COWBOYS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Everson Walls' workers' compensation claim against the Cleveland Browns (now Baltimore Ravens) for an injury sustained while playing professional football. The Board found that Walls was only temporarily employed in California and that the Browns, as a self-insured Ohio employer, provided coverage under Ohio law, which reciprocates California's extraterritorial provisions. Consequently, the Browns are exempted from California workers' compensation law under Labor Code §3600.5(b), and are therefore dismissed from the case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code §3600.5(b)National Football LeagueNFLProfessional Football PlayerCumulative Trauma InjuryTemporary Employee ExemptionExtraterritorial CoverageOhio Bureau of Workers' CompensationSelf-Insured Employer
References
9
Case No. CV-23-0279
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Monique Lewis

The case involves Monique Lewis, a social worker, who sustained a chest injury and alleged psychological injuries after being attacked by a dog during a home visit. The Workers' Compensation Board initially disallowed her claim for psychological injuries, applying a standard that required stress greater than that experienced by similarly situated workers. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, reversed this decision. It ruled that since a workplace accident with physical impact was established for the chest injury, the Board erred in applying the "greater stress" standard for direct psychological injuries resulting from the same incident. The matter was remitted to the Board to determine the causal connection between the accident and the claimed psychological conditions, including PTSD, anxiety, and acute stress disorder.

Workers' CompensationPsychological InjuryPTSDAnxietyAcute Stress DisorderPhysical ImpactWorkplace AccidentCausationAppellate ReviewSocial Worker
References
9
Case No. 231 AD3d 1379
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2024

Matter of Lewis v. NYC Admin. for Children Servs.

Claimant Monique Lewis, a social worker, filed for workers' compensation benefits after a dog charged at her during a home visit, causing a chest injury and psychological trauma including PTSD. Initially, the employer accepted the chest injury, and a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the psychological injuries. However, the Workers' Compensation Board subsequently disallowed the psychological claim, ruling that the stress experienced was not greater than that of similarly situated workers. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, clarifying that the 'greater stress' standard does not apply when psychological injuries directly result from a workplace accident involving physical impact. The court remitted the matter to the Board to determine the causal connection between the established workplace accident and the alleged psychological injuries.

Psychological InjuryPost-traumatic Stress DisorderAnxietyAcute Stress DisorderWorkplace AccidentPhysical ImpactCausal ConnectionAppellate ReviewRemittalDog Attack
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2004

Claim of Scally v. Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District

In this case, a claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding apportionment of her workers' compensation award. The claimant, who suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2002, had a pre-existing non-work-related injury to the same knee from 1986. While a WCLJ initially denied apportionment, the Board reversed, directing a 50/50 apportionment based on the premise that the prior injury would have resulted in a schedule loss of use award had it been work-related. The appellate court upheld the Board's determination, deferring to its interpretation that a non-work-related injury leading to a schedule loss of use constitutes a "disability in a compensation sense" for apportionment purposes. This decision was supported by medical expert testimony indicating a schedule loss of use from the prior surgery.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentKnee InjuryNon-work-related InjurySchedule Loss of UsePreexisting ConditionMedical Expert TestimonyBoard InterpretationJudicial ReviewAppellate Decision
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Field v. New York University

Plaintiff Walter Field, an employee of Exterior Erecting Services, Inc., sustained a crushing injury to his left hand while working on a mobile crane at a New York University renovation site. Field and his wife sued NYU, Corporate Interiors Contracting, Inc., Eastern Exterior Wall Systems, and Cranes, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. The court granted summary judgment dismissing Field's complaint against NYU, Corp, and Eastern regarding Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, finding the cited Industrial Code provisions either complied with or too general. The court denied motions to dismiss Cranes' third-party complaint against Eastern and Exterior, allowing Cranes to amend its complaint to allege 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Finally, the court denied summary judgment for NYU, Corp, and Eastern on their indemnification claims against Cranes, Inc. due to insufficient evidentiary support.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryMobile CraneOutriggerIndemnification
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 12,775 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