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. ADJ182223 (WCK 0010755) ADJ2640291 (OAK 0313072) ADJ2670444 (OAK 0331911)
Regular
Mar 27, 2009

CLAIRE SCHLOENVOGT vs. GRANNY GOOSE FOODS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION BY SERVICING AGENCY, CAMBRIDGE SAN DIEGO, FREMONT INDEMNITY IN LIQUIDATION, TRAVELERS

This case involves applicant Claire Schloenvogt's workers' compensation claims, specifically concerning injuries to his shoulders, neck, and back. The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) sought reconsideration of a decision that denied a cumulative trauma injury claim ending on October 31, 1999. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) opinion supported a cumulative trauma injury based on the applicant's 30 years of employment. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to include this cumulative trauma injury finding.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClaire SchloenvogtGranny Goose FoodsCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationFremont IndemnityTravelerscumulative trauma injurybilateral shouldersneckback
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Appointment of a Guardian of Person & Property of Spingarn

Claire Spingarn, a 95-year-old woman with substantial assets, faced a guardianship petition initiated by her son and daughter under Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law, seeking the daughter's appointment as guardian. Claire, opposing her daughter's appointment due to long-standing antipathy, retained her own counsel. The court ultimately appointed a non-family member as guardian on June 6, 1994, tailoring the order to Claire's personal and property-management needs. This opinion addresses the reasonableness of the legal fees requested by the petitioners' attorneys, citing concerns about the amount, billing methods, and excessive hours. The court found many billed hours unnecessary, duplicative, and not the responsibility of Claire Spingarn, consequently reducing the legal fee to $32,500.

GuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Legal FeesAttorney CompensationReasonable FeesElder LawFee ReductionCourt EvaluatorFiduciary DutiesBilling Practices
References
17
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00657
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of Dibenedetto v. Rochester City Sch. Dist.

Claimant Claire Dibenedetto, who suffered a work-related left shoulder injury in 2012, sought to amend her workers' compensation claim to include consequential Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) in her left and right upper extremities. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially approved the amendment and related medical treatments, but the Workers' Compensation Board subsequently modified this decision, ruling that CRPS was not established and adjusting the disability rate. The Board also resolved disputed medical bills and denied further injections against the claimant. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decisions and remitted the matter for further proceedings. The court found that the Board's determination might have been based on an incomplete review of the record, specifically failing to consider a crucial medical report from a physician at the Cleveland Clinic.

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)Consequential InjuryMedical Evidence ReviewDisability DeterminationAppellate RemittalIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Pain Management TreatmentClaim AmendmentBoard DiscretionCredibility Assessment
References
7
Case No. ADJ1880658
Regular
Feb 09, 2011

CLAIRE COATS vs. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that denied her motion to strike a permanent disability rating and denied her request for cross-examination of the rater. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the applicant was improperly denied her due process right to cross-examine the rater. The Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the case to the trial level for a new WCJ to conduct further proceedings and issue a new decision, allowing consideration of the applicant's other contentions. This procedural error regarding the cross-examination right necessitated the remand.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClaire CoatsState Compensation Insurance FundFindings and Award and OrderSenior Claims AdjusterIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityMotion to StrikeCross-examinationRater
References
1
Case No. ADJ7160976
Regular
Sep 25, 2012

ANTONETTA WILLIAMS vs. CLAIRE'S STORES, INC., TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the prior award and returned the case for further proceedings because the administrative law judge improperly relied on a secondary treating physician's report. The judge failed to establish that the requested attendant care was authorized or constituted substantial medical evidence. The Board emphasized that the primary treating physician must issue opinions on medical issues and the record needs further development to determine entitlement to attendant care.

Attendant carePrimary treating physicianSecondary treating physicianMedical treatment authorizationUtilization reviewSubstantial medical evidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardReconsiderationAgreed Medical Examiner
References
0
Case No. ADJ6577328, ADJ7895770
Regular
Jan 21, 2014

CLAIRE AMMONS vs. REDLANDS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

This case involves an applicant alleging two industrial injuries, a specific injury in 2007 and a cumulative trauma injury from 2003 to 2011, resulting in temporary and permanent disability, including a psyche injury. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the WCJ erred in identifying only two injuries and awarding temporary disability when a medical evaluator found maximum medical improvement earlier. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and remanded the case for further proceedings to develop the medical record, particularly regarding the number of cumulative trauma injuries and apportionment of disability. The Board specifically directed further evaluation from Dr. Kent on injury dates and apportionment, and potentially from a psychiatric evaluator, due to conflicting medical opinions and potential insufficiencies in the existing reports.

ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQMEDr. KentDr. Lustig
References
23
Case No. ADJ17611095; ADJ17611096
Regular
Feb 21, 2025

ALEXANDRYA WOLFE vs. CLAIRES AND STONINGTON INSURANCE CO, GALLAGHER BASSETT

Applicant Alexandrya Wolfe sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Order of Dismissal for inactivity in two cases (ADJ17611095, ADJ17611096). Applicant argued they were receiving medical care and were ready to proceed, having filed objections to both the defendant's petition to dismiss and the WCJ's notice of intention to dismiss. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition, answer, and WCJ's report. The Board determined that the WCJ erred by dismissing the cases without properly addressing applicant's objections or setting the matter for a hearing, thereby violating due process. Consequently, the Board granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the Orders of Dismissal, and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.

WCAB Rule 10550Petition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalNotice of Intention to DismissLack of ProsecutionMedical TreatmentReady Willing AblePetition to Dismiss Inactive CaseMandatory Settlement ConferenceHearing Representative
References
17
Case No. ADJ10232182
Regular
Jul 07, 2017

JOSE SAENZ vs. WILLIAM STOESSER, CLAIRE WERNER, REBECCA B. PISCITELLI 2012 SPECIAL TRUST DATED 12/21/2012, ADAM W. BUCK 2012 SPECIAL TRUST Dated 12/21/2012, BENJAMIN C. BUCK 2012 SPECIAL TRUST Dated 12/21/2012, STATE FARM INSURANCE

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant, Jose Saenz, was injured on April 10, 2015. State Farm sought reconsideration of an arbitrator's finding that four of its insurance policies provided coverage. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the arbitrator's coverage determination premature. The Board rescinded the prior order and returned the matter to the trial level for a determination of who constitutes the applicant's employer(s) before insurance coverage issues can be addressed.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetitions for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationWilliam StoesserClaire WernerRebecca B. Piscitelli 2012 Special TrustAdam W. Buck 2012 Special TrustBenjamin C. Buck 2012 Special TrustState Farm InsuranceHomeowner's Policy
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Breene v. Guardsmark, Inc.

Plaintiff Claire Bailey Breene sued Guardsmark, Inc. alleging negligence after an assault in a building where Guardsmark provided security. Guardsmark moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5), claiming improper service of process. A hearing was held to resolve conflicting facts regarding service. The court found that the process server, Doreen Yankopolous, diligently served Guardsmark by following instructions from its employee, Rachel Cheruff, who had been authorized by manager Peter P. Miller. The court applied a liberal interpretation of CPLR § 311(1), emphasizing that the corporation received fair notice of the lawsuit. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied in all respects.

Service of ProcessPersonal JurisdictionCorporate ServiceRule 12(b)(5) MotionDue DiligenceManaging AgentApparent AuthorityCPLR 311New York Civil PracticeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 1998

Devlin v. City of New York

This personal injury action was brought by plaintiffs, including Claire Devlin, against Charge A Ride and Car Company, Inc., and individual drivers, following an accident involving two Charge A Ride cars. Charge A Ride sought summary judgment, arguing its drivers were independent contractors and it lacked vicarious liability. The Supreme Court denied this motion, and the appellate court affirmed the denial. The court found that a question of fact existed regarding the nature of the relationship, citing factors indicative of Charge A Ride's control over its drivers. A dissenting opinion argued insufficient control for an employer-employee relationship, but the majority emphasized that the issue, including whether Charge A Ride presented itself as the employer, should be resolved by a jury.

Vicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryCar Dispatch CompanyControl TestAppellate ReviewDissenting OpinionWorkers' Compensation
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 11 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