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

Welch v. Mr. Christmas Inc.

The case concerns a professional actor (plaintiff) suing a manufacturer of artificial Christmas trees (defendant) under New York Civil Rights Law § 51 for unauthorized use of a television commercial. The defendant continued airing the commercial in 1975 after the original contract and option period had expired, despite warnings. A jury awarded both compensatory and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, clarifying that knowledge is not required for compensatory damages under § 51, and that for exemplary damages, "knowing use" without consent is sufficient, not requiring malice or recklessness. The court also held the defendant responsible for the distributor's unauthorized use and the principle of expired consent.

Civil Rights LawRight of PrivacyCommercial AppropriationUnauthorized AdvertisingExpired ConsentCompensatory DamagesExemplary DamagesPunitive Damages StandardsKnowing UseDistributor Responsibility
References
21
Case No. ADJ7636863
Regular
Apr 02, 2012

KARINE GABRIYELYAN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SOCIAL SERVICES-IHSS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained by a home care provider while transporting her client, who was experiencing a medical emergency, to the client's daughter's home on Christmas Eve. The applicant testified she acted out of concern for the client's well-being, not for personal reasons, and that the injury occurred when the client fell on her on the stairs. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petitioner's request for reconsideration, finding substantial evidence that the applicant's actions were within the course and scope of her employment and that their request for a continuance was improperly handled. The WCJ's credibility findings were given significant weight in the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJudge's ReportApplicant's OccupationHome Care ProviderDate of InjuryLumbar SpineCervical SpinePsycheSleep Disorder
References
1
Case No. ADJ4617702 (GOL 0098783) ADJ1170523 (GOL 0100196)
Regular
Mar 24, 2015

EVE JOHNSON vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted the Defendant's Petition for Removal and Disqualification of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The WCJ abused his discretion by sua sponte initiating sanctions against the Defendant and ordering the appearance of their claims adjuster, instead of proceeding to trial on the applicant's representation status. Furthermore, the WCJ's expressed opinions and actions created an appearance of bias, necessitating his disqualification. The case is returned to the trial level for a new hearing on the originally scheduled issues.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationAdministrative Law JudgeSanctionsMedical-Legal EvaluationLabor CodeRepresented ApplicantUnrepresented ApplicantQME
References
1
Case No. ADJ7805819
Regular
Nov 20, 2018

Eve Martinez vs. Pomona Unified School District, Corvel

This case involved an applicant seeking reconsideration of a prior award finding a left shoulder injury with 29% permanent disability. Applicant contested the WCJ's refusal to allow more time for medical evaluations. The parties subsequently participated in a settlement conference and agreed to Compromises and Releases resolving all claims. The Appeals Board approved the settlement, finding it adequate and in the applicant's best interest, rescinding the prior award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardCompromise and ReleasePermanent DisabilityMedical TreatmentMedical EvaluationsLabor CodeWCAB RuleSelf-Insured
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Still v. County of Dutchess

Claimant, a probation officer with the County of Dutchess, sustained a knee injury while preparing for a Christmas party held off the employer's premises. Her claim for workers' compensation benefits was denied by the Workers' Compensation Board, which found that the accident did not arise in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the party was not on employer premises, lacked employer financial support or control, and did not directly benefit the employer, thus not meeting the criteria for a compensable injury in similar factual circumstances.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentOff-premises AccidentChristmas Party InjuryEmployer ControlEmployer Financial SupportAppellate ReviewFactual QuestionSubstantial EvidenceNew York Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Howe v. Wm. Spencer & Son Corp.

The dissenting opinion argues that the decedent was not in the course of his employment when he was struck on the public highway because he had left work for the Christmas holiday. His presence at the time of the accident was for purely personal reasons and unconnected to his employment. The dissent asserts that the death did not arise out of or in the course of employment, and there is no substantial evidence to the contrary. The testimony of a witness, Hayes, is deemed highly suspect and uncorroborated, referencing Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 118, and *Matter of Ohriner* v. *Jamaica Wet Wash Laundry Co.* The dissent concludes that the board's decision should be reversed and the claim dismissed.

Workers' CompensationEmployment ScopeHoliday LeavePersonal ActivitiesFatal AccidentPublic HighwayUncorroborated TestimonyDissenting OpinionClaim DismissalCausation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Newspaper Guild of Buffalo, Local No. 26 & Tonawanda Publishing Corp.

This case involves an appeal by a union against an employer after the denial of a motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose when the employer ceased paying a Christmas bonus, a customary practice, claiming it was not explicitly covered by the collective bargaining agreement. The union's attempts to initiate grievance procedures were rebuffed by the employer, who argued no dispute existed. The court ruled that denying the motion was an error, emphasizing that courts should not delve into the merits of a grievance and that arbitration cannot be sidestepped due to a party's refusal to adhere to contractual pre-arbitration obligations. The order was reversed, and the motion to compel arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective BargainingEmployer-Employee RelationshipBonus DisputesGrievance ProceduresContract InterpretationAppellate ReviewLabor LawMotion to Compel
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bastidas v. Epic Realty, LLC

In an action for personal injuries, the defendants, Epic Realty, LLC and Fine Management, Inc., appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 13, 2008. The order denied their motion to refer issues regarding the plaintiff's employment status to the Workers' Compensation Board for determination. The plaintiff was allegedly injured in May 2004 while working in an apartment owned by Epic and managed by Fine. While the defendants argued the Board had primary jurisdiction, they had previously failed to assert before the Board that they were the plaintiff's employer, and even argued in a prior appeal that the plaintiff was not their employee. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the defendants could not raise the primary jurisdiction argument on the eve of trial given their prior conduct.

Personal InjuryEmployment StatusWorkers' Compensation BoardPrimary JurisdictionAppellate ReviewLabor LawAffirmative DefenseExclusivity ProvisionNew York LawLadder Fall
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2004

Sweeney v. Purcell Constructuion Corp.

Plaintiffs appealed and cross-appealed an order from Supreme Court, Jefferson County, concerning damages for injuries from toxic mold exposure at their workplace. The court properly denied defendants' initial motion for summary judgment, rejecting the claim that Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS) are not recognized, as plaintiffs alleged occupationally-induced asthma instead. The court also correctly denied plaintiffs' motions to preclude expert testimony due to waiver. However, the appellate court found the trial court erred in granting defendants' eve-of-trial motion to amend their answer and dismiss the complaint against individual defendant physicians based on the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy, deeming the motion untimely. Consequently, the order was modified to deny defendants' motion regarding Workers’ Compensation Law §11 and reinstate the complaint against the individual physicians, and as modified, affirmed without costs.

workers' compensation lawsummary judgmenttoxic mold exposureoccupational asthmaexpert testimonyamendment of pleadingexclusive remedytimeliness of motionmedical malpractice claimappellate review
References
3
Showing 1-9 of 9 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