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

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2005

Stamm v. PHH Vehicle Management Services, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning plaintiffs Thoburn, III (Toby) and Cannon, who, as young children, were present during a car accident in 1985 that left their mother with severe and permanent brain injuries. They subsequently filed a lawsuit against their father, Thoburn M. Stamm, Jr., and PHH Vehicle Management Services, LLC, alleging physical and emotional injuries, specifically emotional distress and post-traumatic stress syndrome, under the 'zone of danger' theory. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the alleged emotional injuries were not proximately caused by the direct observation of their mother's serious injury during the accident. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions, but the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing the complaint with prejudice, concluding that plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their zone of danger claims.

Zone of DangerNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary JudgmentAppellate ReversalCar AccidentEmotional InjuryParental ConsortiumPsychiatric EvaluationEvidentiary StandardsProximate Causation
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04978
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2019

Robles v. Taconic Mgt. Co., LLC

Edilberto Robles, a laborer, sustained head injuries from a closing freight elevator door and commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and common-law negligence against multiple entities involved in the building's management, operation, and his employment. The Supreme Court granted several motions for summary judgment. On appeal and cross-appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order. It denied summary judgment to Taconic Management Company, LLC, Taconic Management Corp., 111 Chelsea, LLC, and Waldorf Carting Corporation on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding triable issues of fact regarding supervision and control and the alter ego defense. The court also denied summary judgment on indemnification claims against Collins Building Services, Inc., and Waldorf Carting Corporation. The dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Taconic and Chelsea, and the dismissal of claims against Collins Building Services, Inc., and New York Elevator & Electrical Corporation were affirmed.

Personal injuryLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentIndemnificationThird-party actionWorkers' Compensation LawAlter ego defensePremises liability
References
20
Case No. ADJ10988642; ADJ11111236
Regular
Apr 14, 2025

Cecilia Dolores Garcia vs. Pomona Unified School District, Sedgwick Claims Management Services

Both applicant Cecilia Dolores Garcia and defendants Pomona Unified School District and Sedgwick Claims Management Services petitioned for reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's Findings and Order (Amended) from January 30, 2025. The WCJ had found no work-related psyche injury, an industrial left knee injury, and ordered further development for other claimed body parts. The applicant contested the psyche injury finding, while the defendants challenged the left knee finding and the need for further medical development. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted both petitions for reconsideration and deferred a final decision pending further review of the merits and the entire record.

Cumulative traumaPsyche injuryLeft knee injuryIndustrial natureFurther developmentMed-legal evaluationSpecific injuryNon-industrialDiligencePetition for reconsideration
References
24
Case No. ADJ2906378
Regular
May 24, 2011

NORMA ALONSO vs. PRECISION CAST PARTS CORPORATION AKA AVIBANK MANUFACTURING, INC.; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves Norma Alonso's workers' compensation claim against Precision Cast Parts Corporation and Sedgwick Claims Management Services. Alonso filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal, seeking to overturn a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the administrative law judge's report. Ultimately, the Board denied both reconsideration and removal, adopting the reasoning of the administrative law judge's report.

ReconsiderationRemovalPetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDeniedPrecision Cast Parts CorporationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesADJ2906378LAO 0881297
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Engler v. United Parcel Service

Claimant, a delivery driver for United Parcel Service, filed a workers' compensation claim in 2001, alleging interstitial pulmonary fibrosis due to exposure to dust and irritants. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found he suffered an occupational disease and permanent partial disability. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, but the Court reversed in 2003, remitting the case to consider accidental injury. In an amended decision, the Board ruled claimant sustained an accidental injury from airborne irritants. The employer and carrier appealed again. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's condition arose from unusual environmental factors within his delivery vehicle, consistent with medical opinions linking his lung disease to mixed dust exposure at work.

Interstitial Pulmonary FibrosisOccupational ExposureWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausally Related InjuryDelivery Vehicle EnvironmentAirborne IrritantsMedical TestimonyBiopsy FindingsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tuttle v. Housing Opportunities Management & Essential Services, Inc.

The plaintiff, a 30-year-old man diagnosed with retardation, suffered severe burns from an assault by a friend in his apartment. He resided in an intensive supportive apartment provided by Housing Opportunities Management and Essential Services, Inc. (H.O.M.E.S.), a non-profit organization offering housing for individuals with psychiatric or developmental conditions within a state-authorized community living program. While H.O.M.E.S. staff and other therapists had approved his move to this less restrictive setting, concerns arose regarding friends taking advantage of him, leading H.O.M.E.S. to initiate a discharge process for him to move to a more supervised environment, which was not completed before the incident. The court deliberated on whether H.O.M.E.S. owed a duty to protect the plaintiff from a third party's criminal acts. Citing Mental Hygiene Law and various precedents, the court concluded that H.O.M.E.S. had no such special duty, emphasizing that the community care system prioritizes individual liberties and the assault by the friend was not reasonably foreseeable. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Community HousingDevelopmental DisabilitiesPsychiatric ConditionsNegligenceDuty of CareForeseeabilityThird-Party Criminal ActsMental Hygiene LawCommunity Care SystemResidential Programs
References
10
Case No. WCK 0068998
Regular
Jan 22, 2008

LINDA FONTENOT vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES INC., PINNACLE RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded sanctions imposed against Barrett Business Services Inc. (represented by Pinnacle Risk Management Services) and its adjustor, Chamber Medical Collections, Inc. (CMC), for failing to appear at a hearing. The WCAB found that CMC provided a reasonable excuse for its non-appearance, supported by a doctor's note, and deemed the sanctions disproportionate. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings on other sanctions and the underlying lien claim.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSanction OrdersLien ClaimantFailure to AppearWCJPetition for ReconsiderationTimelinessReasonable ExcuseDoctor's Statement
References
0
Case No. GRO 0033694
Regular
Dec 21, 2007

MICHAEL CEDILLOS vs. WALGREENS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Both applicant Michael Cedillos and defendant Walgreens, through Sedgwick Claims Management Services, petitioned for reconsideration of a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration for both parties to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action is necessary to ensure a complete understanding of the record and to issue a just decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and OrderStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decisionFurther proceedingsReconsideration UnitDecision After ReconsiderationService by mail
References
0
Case No. ADJ7874883
Regular
Apr 10, 2013

ENRIQUE ESPINOZA vs. MARTIN PROPERTIES, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Enrique Espinoza's Petition for Reconsideration against Martin Properties and Sedgwick Claims Management Services. The dismissal was primarily due to the petition not being timely filed. Even if it had been timely, the Board would have denied it on the merits, adopting the reasoning of the administrative law judge. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalTimely FiledWCJ ReportAdministrative Law JudgeSedgwick Claims Management ServicesMartin PropertiesEnrique EspinozaAnaheim District Office
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 22,420 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