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

City of New York v. Commissioner of Labor

Petitioners, the City of New York and the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), along with three juvenile detention centers, initiated a proceeding to annul a 2010 decision by the State Industrial Board of Appeals. This decision upheld 2007 notices of violations (NOVs) issued against the centers for exposing employees to workplace violence, citing Labor Law § 27-a (3), the General Duty Clause. Petitioners argued the NOVs should have cited the more specific Workplace Violence Prevention Act (WVPA), Labor Law § 27-b. Respondents, District Council 37, the Commissioner of Labor, and the Board, contended that the WVPA could not be cited as its implementing regulations were not yet promulgated. The court, finding the Board's decision rational and consistent with statutory and regulatory schemes regarding "specific standards" under PESHA, denied the petition and dismissed the CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Workplace SafetyGeneral Duty ClauseWorkplace Violence Prevention ActPublic Employee Safety and Health ActAdministrative ReviewStatutory InterpretationPromulgation of RegulationsJuvenile Detention CentersNotice of ViolationRisk Evaluation
References
8
Case No. ADJ7818378 ADJ8556286
Regular
Nov 06, 2017

ZENAIDA SALAZAR vs. J. G. BOSWELL COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involved Attorney Kyle Nielsen's petition to disqualify Workers' Compensation Judge Geoffrey H. Sims, alleging bias. Nielsen cited the judge's fee award ruling, decision to set a trial, misspelling of his name, and order for personal appearance as evidence of bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding no grounds for disqualification. The Board noted the petition lacked a required affidavit and that the cited actions did not demonstrate actual bias or prejudice.

WCABPetition for DisqualificationAttorney's FeesWCJBiasLabor Code Section 5311WCAB Rule 10452Compromise and ReleaseFee SplitReconsideration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tyk v. New York State Education Department

An Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) challenged the New York State Department of Education Commissioner's decision to revoke his authority without a hearing. The Commissioner cited issues like inflammatory language and late decisions. The court found that revoking the IHO's authority without a hearing violated due process, as it negatively impacted his reputation and ability to earn a living. Citing various precedents on liberty and property interests, the court ruled that the IHO was entitled to a hearing. The application was granted, and the Commissioner was ordered to conduct a hearing within 60 days or reinstate the IHO.

Due ProcessRevocation of AuthorityImpartial Hearing OfficerAdministrative LawArticle 78Right to HearingReputation DamageLiberty InterestProperty InterestEducation Law
References
12
Case No. 69 Civ. 200 (DNE)
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. International Business MacHines Corp.

This memorandum addresses International Business Machines Corporation's (IBM) request for Judge David N. Edelstein to recuse himself from further proceedings in U. S. v. IBM. IBM filed an affidavit alleging the judge had personal bias and prejudice, and that the court lacked jurisdiction following a stipulation of dismissal on January 8, 1982. The court asserts its jurisdiction to determine its own authority, citing precedent. The memorandum concludes that IBM's recusal request is without merit, citing reasons such as it being a second such affidavit in the case, its untimeliness, and the failure to demonstrate an extrajudicial bias. Consequently, the request for recusal is denied.

Recusal MotionJudicial BiasJurisdiction DisputeTunney Act ApplicabilityAntitrust ProceduresStipulation of DismissalAmicus Curiae InterventionTimeliness of MotionCode of Judicial ConductFederal Procedure
References
12
Case No. ADJ9694948
Regular
Feb 01, 2016

ESTHER SANDOVAL vs. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied San Diego Unified School District's petition for reconsideration of an award finding applicant entitled to right shoulder surgery. The defendant argued that the medical opinions supporting the surgery were not substantial evidence because they didn't cite MTUS/ACOEM guidelines or explain non-compliance. The Board affirmed the original finding, agreeing with the WCJ that citing the MTUS is not strictly required if the medical evidence is otherwise compelling and consistent with the guidelines. While one commissioner concurred, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that MTUS citation is not necessary for compliance with Labor Code section 4604.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Diego Unified School DistrictYork Risk Services GroupPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderIndustrial InjuryFurther Medical TreatmentRight Shoulder SurgeryMedical Treatment Utilization ScheduleACOEM guidelines
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Jensen

The claimant, a dock worker, was terminated from employment due to unauthorized absences exceeding seven days without medical justification. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled this termination constituted disqualifying misconduct, leading to the claimant's ineligibility for unemployment insurance benefits. The claimant appealed, contending that the union contract section cited by the employer only addressed loss of seniority, not dismissal. However, the court clarified that the claimant was deemed to have voluntarily quit due to extended absence, not discharged under the seniority clause. Citing established precedent that unauthorized absences constitute misconduct, the court found substantial evidence to support the Board's decision.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductUnauthorized AbsencesTermination of EmploymentDock WorkerUnion ContractSeniorityVoluntary QuitSubstantial EvidenceAppeal Board Decision
References
3
Case No. ADJ11595561 ADJ11602485
Regular
Jun 27, 2019

CINTIA LEMUS vs. MOTEL 6/G6 HOSPITALITY, LIBERTY MUTUAL

In this case, the applicant sustained work-related injuries to her mid and low back. The defendant disputed the applicant's request for a chiropractic Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel, arguing an orthopedic-spine specialist was more appropriate. The Medical Director initially agreed, citing the use of prescription medication outside a chiropractor's scope. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding that the Medical Director's rationale was insufficient. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision to overrule the Medical Director and allow a chiropractic QME, citing precedent that QMEs cannot provide treatment or opine on disputed treatment issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings and OrderAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Medical DirectorQME Panel SpecialtyChiropracticOrthopedic-Spine
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Waters v. City of New York

Claimant was injured in an automobile accident during employment in 1989 and received a 10% schedule loss award for her left leg. She subsequently settled a third-party action for $5,000 without obtaining the consent of her self-insured employer. The Workers’ Compensation Board consequently discontinued her benefits, citing the lack of employer consent. On appeal, the Court determined that the Board had previously granted an exception to the consent requirement in factually identical cases, but failed to apply or explain its deviation from this established precedent in the claimant's case. Therefore, the Court reversed the Board's decision, citing the necessity for consistency or a reasoned explanation for departure, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party SettlementEmployer ConsentSchedule Loss AwardInsurance LawPrecedentRemittalAppellate ReviewSelf-Insured EmployerAutomobile Accident
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02914 [217 AD3d 1024]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

Matter of Nguyen v. CVS RX Servs., Inc.

Claimant Hung Nguyen alleged discrimination and retaliation by his employer, CVS RX Services, Inc., after taking paid family leave, citing reduced hours, decreased pay raises, and loss of benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found in Nguyen's favor, ordering reinstatement and back wages. The employer failed to timely appeal and its subsequent application to rehear or reopen the claim was denied by the Workers' Compensation Board, citing a lack of new material evidence and inadequate justification for repeated non-appearance at hearings. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the employer's request.

Workers' Compensation LawPaid Family LeaveDiscriminationRetaliationAppellate ReviewBoard's DiscretionRehearing ApplicationReopening ClaimDue ProcessNotice Requirements
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of De La Concha v. Fordham University

Claimant, a locksmith at Fordham University, was terminated after filing a workers' compensation claim following an alleged physical altercation with the employer's director of human resources. The employer cited reasons including filing a false report for benefits, while the claimant alleged unlawful termination for filing the claim. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found the employer's motivation was retaliatory, violating Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. On appeal, the employer challenged the Board's adherence to precedent and the substantial evidence for its decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding the employer's cited precedents distinguishable and substantial evidence supported the finding of retaliatory discharge.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeWrongful TerminationEmployer RetaliationLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative LawBoard PrecedentWorkplace InjuryMedical Evidence
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 4,136 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