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. ADJ4386714 (RIV 0021250)
Regular
Apr 04, 2011

Clifford Carlson vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Clifford Carlson's petition for reconsideration of a decision that found the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) complied with a prior award and was not liable for penalties. Carlson had alleged the MTA failed to make timely disability payments, sought over 100 penalties, and claimed the judge's findings were fraudulent and unsupported by evidence. The Board also denied the MTA's petition for sanctions against Carlson, finding his conduct, though arguably aggressive, did not rise to the level of bad faith as defined by statute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClifford CarlsonLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transit AuthorityPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderPenaltiesLabor Code section 4650Timely Disability PaymentsCredit for Permanent Disability PaymentsSanctions
References
0
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 24027 [82 Misc 3d 1068]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2024

People v. Clifford

This case involves the prosecution of Jasmine Clifford, Nadayza Barkley, R.V., and J.O. in New York County for charges related to the falsification and purchase of COVID-19 vaccine cards. Clifford and Barkley are accused of selling hundreds of falsified cards and entering false information into the NYSIIS database. R.V. and J.O. are alleged purchasers of these cards. The court granted the motions to dismiss for R.V. and J.O., citing their individual circumstances, the less serious nature of their alleged offenses, and a lack of proven specific harm. However, the court denied the motions for Clifford and Barkley, emphasizing the seriousness of their actions in profiting from the scheme and tampering with a state database.

Criminal PossessionForged InstrumentCOVID-19 VaccineVaccine MandatesDismissal in Interest of JusticeCPL 210.40NYSIIS DatabasePublic Health EmergencyProsecutorial DiscretionNew York Penal Law
References
18
Case No. No. 47
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2017

Michael J. Carlson, Sr. v. American International Group, Inc.

A jury awarded Michael Carlson $20 million following his wife's death in an accident involving an MVP truck driven by William Porter. The Appellate Division later reduced the judgment and dismissed claims against DHL. Carlson then sued DHL's insurers, National Union and AAIC, under Insurance Law § 3420, arguing the MVP vehicle qualified as a "hired auto" and that the policies were "issued or delivered" in New York. While the Supreme Court initially allowed the claims, the Appellate Division reversed both, finding no "hired auto" coverage and that the policies were not "issued or delivered" in New York. The Court of Appeals reinstated Carlson's claims against the insurers, holding that the "hired auto" issue presented a question of fact and that "issued or delivered" in Insurance Law § 3420 applies to policies covering insureds and risks within New York. The court, however, affirmed the dismissal of Carlson's other claims for fraud, bad faith, General Business Law violations, and conspiracy.

Insurance CoverageHired AutoInsurance Policy InterpretationRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorVehicle and Traffic LawInsurance Law § 3420Automobile AccidentLiability InsurancePersonal Injury
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carlson v. Geneva City School District

Plaintiff Catherine Carlson, a Media Library Specialist, filed suit against the Geneva City School District and several individual employees, alleging sexual harassment by Principal David D. Pullen and subsequent retaliation by all defendants when she complained. Her claims included violations of Title VII, ADA, FMLA, NYHRL, defamation, slander, libel, prima facie tort, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The alleged retaliation involved false accusations, administrative leave, new work restrictions, negative performance evaluations, and reassignment to a less desirable position. Defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment. The court granted the motion in part and denied in part, dismissing some state-law claims due to notice non-compliance or being time-barred, and dismissing Title VII and ADA claims against individual defendants. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend certain remaining claims.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIIADAFMLANYHRLDefamationSlanderLibel
References
51
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02366 [227 AD3d 406]
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2024

Matter of Carlson v. New York City Council

This case concerns a hybrid CPLR article 78/declaratory judgment proceeding initiated by Christina Carlson and others against the New York City Council and the New York City School Construction Authority (SCA). The Supreme Court had annulled SCA's negative declaration for a proposed school development, remanding for an environmental impact statement (EIS). The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The court concluded that despite misclassifying the project as 'unlisted' instead of 'Type I' under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the SCA nonetheless conducted an equivalent Type I review, fulfilling the 'hard look' requirement for potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the misclassification did not necessitate annulling the negative declaration.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS)Type I ActionUnlisted ActionMisclassificationJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionSchool Construction Project
References
23
Case No. ADJ9329165
Regular
Nov 09, 2014

JANA CARLSON (Deceased) KENNETH CARLSON (Widower) vs. CONTINENTAL VINEYARDS, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award for the death of Jana Carlson. The defendants contest the award of maximum death benefits, arguing the decedent's earnings were stipulated as minimum, and challenge the dependency of a foster child without a presumption. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to defer determination of the foster child's dependency and the rate of benefits under Labor Code section 4703.5, but affirmed the WCJ's findings on other issues, including the appointment of the widower as guardian ad litem.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJana CarlsonKenneth CarlsonContinental VineyardsEmployers Compensation Insurance CompanyADJ9329165Findings and AwardReconsiderationDependency BenefitsLabor Code Section 4703.5
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flood v. Carlson Restaurants Inc.

Plaintiffs, a group of former tipped employees, brought a collective action against Carlson Restaurants Inc., Carlson Restaurants Worldwide Inc., and T.G.I. Friday’s Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and various state wage laws. Defendants moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of Texas and to partially dismiss the FLSA minimum wage claim, which was based on the 'twenty percent rule' concerning non-tipped duties. The court denied the motion to transfer, deferring to the plaintiffs' choice of the Southern District of New York as a forum and finding factors like witness convenience and locus of operative facts to be neutral. Furthermore, the court denied the motion to dismiss, upholding the validity of the twenty percent rule as a reasonable interpretation by the Department of Labor and finding the plaintiffs' allegations sufficient to state a claim.

FLSANYLLWage and Hour LawTipped EmployeesTip CreditTwenty Percent RuleMotion to Transfer VenueMotion to DismissCollective ActionFederal Labor Law
References
51
Case No. ADJ2477078 (SAC 0271339)
Regular
Aug 28, 2009

Frances Carlson vs. Blue Cross of California, California Insurance Guarantee Association (for Fremont, in Liquidation)

This case concerns applicant Frances Carlson's claim for vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) benefits stemming from a cumulative trauma injury ending October 16, 1996. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and reversed the trial judge's award of VRMA. This decision was based on the en banc rulings in *Weiner I* and *Weiner II*, which held that the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5 terminated rights to vocational rehabilitation benefits for awards not final before January 1, 2009. Since Carlson's VRMA claim was not final before that date, the WCAB found it lacked jurisdiction and rescinded the award.

CIGAFremont in liquidationcumulative traumaVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMANotice of Potential EligibilityNOPELabor Code section 139.5Weiner v. Ralphs Companyvested rights
References
2
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04575 [151 AD3d 1544]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2017

NCA Comp, Inc. v. 1289 Clifford Ave.

Plaintiff, the administrator of a group self-insurance trust, initiated an action to collect assessments from various contractors (defendants) after the trust became underfunded. The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint, deeming the assessments invalid. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed the lower court's orders. The Appellate Division found that the documentary evidence did not conclusively establish a defense for the defendants and that they were contractually obligated to pay the assessments under the GSIT agreement, including its amendments. The court clarified that 'employer' status was a descriptive label and did not negate the obligation to pay assessments, thereby reinstating the complaint against the defendants.

Workers' Compensation LawSelf-Insurance Trust FundGroup Self-Insurance TrustGSIT AgreementAssessmentContractual LiabilityCPLR 3211Motion to DismissAppellate DivisionStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gill v. Samuel Kosoff & Sons, Inc.

The dissent in this case argues for granting summary judgment to the defendant and third-party defendant, dismissing the plaintiffs' Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Justice Mercure contends that plaintiff Clifford Gill's injuries did not stem from elevation-related hazards as defined by the Labor Law. Specifically, Gill was hoisting a load only six inches from the ground, was not struck by the load, and the "hoist" was on the same level, thus not a falling object. The dissent concludes Gill's injuries resulted from ordinary construction site perils rather than the specific elevation risks intended by Labor Law § 240 (1). Despite the dissent, the order was affirmed.

Labor Law § 240Summary JudgmentElevation RiskConstruction AccidentWorker SafetyDissenting OpinionStatutory InterpretationFalling ObjectPersonal InjuryAppellate Decision
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 49 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