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. ADJ9919242
Regular
Apr 04, 2017

JAMES KIRCHER vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City and County of San Francisco's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the finding that a firefighter sustained an industrial injury to his heart and circulatory system when he experienced atrial arrhythmias during a mandatory work treadmill test. Although the Agreed Medical Examiner initially stated he wouldn't term the event an "injury," he later opined the arrhythmias were work-related and caused in part by job stress, leading to the applicant being taken off work. The Board concluded this constituted an injury under the Labor Code, resulting in temporary disability.

Atrial arrhythmiasTreadmill stress testAgreed Medical ExaminerWork mandated health checkIndustrial injuryTemporary disabilityPermanent disabilityOccupational medicineCardiologyLabor Code section 3208
References
0
Case No. ADJ8603115
Regular
Aug 15, 2013

Laverne Maliga vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City and County of San Francisco's petition for reconsideration of an award to Laverne Maliga. The applicant, a firefighter, sustained an injury while attending a trench rescue training class offered through a federal grant program. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which found the injury arose out of and in the course of employment because the Fire Department encouraged participation in such training for skill development and public protection. The judge distinguished this case from similar ones by noting the employer's active encouragement and provision of opportunities for the training.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity and County of San FranciscoPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactCourse of EmploymentTrench Rescue TrainingSan Francisco Fire DepartmentHomeland Security GrantOff-Duty StatusProfessional Development
References
14
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02096
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2016

Matter of Nassau County Sheriff's Correction Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v. Nassau County

John Thomas, a correction officer, sustained a back injury in 1998 and subsequently received General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits. After periods of restricted duty and military service, medical evaluations in 2009 determined he was unfit for any duty, reinstating his benefits. However, in February 2010, a County-appointed doctor deemed him fit for light-duty work, leading the Nassau County Sheriff's Department to discontinue his benefits. Thomas and his labor union challenged this decision, arguing a due process violation due to the hearing officer placing the burden of proof on Thomas to demonstrate his unfitness. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's dismissal, concluding that Thomas was afforded due process as he had the opportunity to present evidence and requiring him to support his claim of continued total disability was permissible.

CPLR Article 78 ProceedingGeneral Municipal Law § 207-c BenefitsDue Process RightsBurden of ProofLight-Duty AssignmentCorrection Officer InjuryDiscontinuation of BenefitsAppellate ReviewProperty InterestCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02920 [238 AD3d 876]
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2025

Matter of Nassau County Sheriff's Corr. Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v. Nassau County

The Nassau County Sheriff's Correction Officers Benevolent Association, Inc. (the Union) appealed an order that denied its petition to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration stemmed from a grievance alleging that Nassau County violated a collective bargaining agreement by not crediting compensatory time to Union members working during a COVID-19 state of emergency. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the County, and the Supreme Court confirmed this award. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review for arbitration awards. The court found that the Union failed to prove the award was irrational or that the arbitrator exceeded their power, as the award was supported by the record and based on an interpretation of the CBA.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR Article 75VacaturAppellate ReviewLabor DisputeCOVID-19Nassau CountyCompensatory TimeContract Interpretation
References
8
Case No. 09-CV-8140 (KMK)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2011

In Re Dayton

Plaintiffs Michael Dayton and Barbara Nieves, individually and as guardian for their five infant children, brought action against the City of Middletown, its police officers, Orange County, and the Department of Social Services Orange County (DSS) alleging federal and state law violations. The claims stemmed from a November 2008 incident involving an alleged attack by a felon and subsequent police actions, followed by Family Court proceedings where neglect findings were entered against the parents. The court granted DSS's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding it not a suable entity. Motions to dismiss the federal § 1983 Monell claims against Middletown and Orange County were granted without prejudice due to insufficient pleading of a municipal policy. State law claims against Orange County were dismissed without prejudice due to untimely notice of claim for adult plaintiffs, with infant claims requiring state court application. Claims arising from the Family Court's neglect finding and protective order were dismissed with prejudice under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, but other allegations regarding Orange County's conduct during Family Court proceedings survived. The Middletown Officers' motion for summary judgment was denied without prejudice, citing insufficient factual inconsistencies for dismissal prior to discovery. Plaintiffs were given thirty days to file a Second Amended Complaint.

Civil Rights ViolationsFourth AmendmentEighth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment42 U.S.C. § 1983Motion to DismissSummary JudgmentRooker-Feldman doctrineMonell claimFailure to Train
References
98
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00069 [223 AD3d 660]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2024

Matter of County of Nassau v. Nassau County Sheriff's Corr. Officers' Benevolent Assn.

The County of Nassau appealed an order denying its petition to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration award had concluded that the County violated a collective bargaining agreement by denying General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits to correction officers who missed no work time but sought medical treatment for work-related injuries or illnesses. The Supreme Court initially denied the County's petition and granted the union's cross-petition to confirm the award. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this order, finding the arbitration award to be irrational because the claimants neither sought payment of salary/wages nor reimbursement for out-of-pocket medical expenses, thus not requiring the benefits outlined in General Municipal Law § 207-c. Consequently, the County's petition to vacate the arbitration award was granted, and the cross-petition to confirm was denied.

Arbitration AwardVacaturCollective Bargaining AgreementGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cCorrection OfficersMedical BenefitsLost TimePublic Policy ExceptionIrrational AwardAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. SFO 0495624
Regular
Feb 11, 2008

TUALATAI AUIMATAGI vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to rescind sanctions imposed on the City and County of San Francisco. While affirming the original award of permanent disability and further medical treatment, the Board found the defendant's challenge to the agreed medical evaluator's methodology was based on a good-faith, albeit mistaken, belief and did not constitute frivolous conduct or unnecessary delay. Therefore, sanctions were deemed unwarranted under Labor Code section 5813.

Tualatai AuimatagiCity and County of San FranciscoFindings Award & OrderAgreed Medical EvaluatorAlfredo Fernandez M.D.American Medical Association GuidesAMA GuidesGait Derangement Methodwhole person impairmentpermanent disability
References
1
Case No. ADJ2569930
Regular
Jul 30, 2012

LOUIS DOBERT vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the City and County of San Francisco's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the prior decision to grant removal and rescind a stay of proceedings, which had been sought pending the applicant's criminal fraud trial. The Board reasoned that continuing to provide workers' compensation benefits aligns with the applicant's presumption of innocence. Denying benefits before a conviction would unjustly prejudice the applicant, and restitution can be sought if convicted.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalStay of ProceedingsPresumption of InnocenceWorkers' Compensation FraudInsurance FraudGrand TheftAttempted PerjuryFindings and Award
References
10
Case No. ADJ9597686
Regular
Jan 13, 2016

TOMIE KATO vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is reconsidering an order directing the City and County of San Francisco (defendant) to pay applicant's attorney $\$ 3,082.00$ for deposition fees. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the fee was unreasonable and requesting sanctions against applicant's attorney. The WCAB deemed the defendant's petition to be a timely objection to the original order. The matter is returned to the Workers' Compensation Judge to consider the objection and determine the reasonableness of the attorney fees. The WCAB denied the request for sanctions against applicant's attorney.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationSection 5710 Attorney Deposition FeesWCJPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code Section 5813 SanctionsReasonableness of Attorney FeesDeposition TranscriptMotor Vehicle Accident
References
0
Case No. ADJ10658104
Regular
Sep 12, 2018

STEPHEN HOM vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

This case involved a police officer claiming industrial injury to his lumbar spine. The defendant City and County of San Francisco sought to reduce the applicant's permanent disability award by apportioning a prior $20\%$ award for a previous lumbar injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the original award, finding the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving apportionment under Labor Code section 4664. Specifically, the defendant did not demonstrate an overlap between the current and prior disabilities because they were rated using different methods, and the medical evaluator relied on an incorrect legal theory for apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationindustrial injurylumbar spinepermanent disabilityapportionmentLabor Code section 4664(b)prior awardoverlapAMA Guides
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 11,171 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