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

50 Lefferts LLC v. Cole

This case involves a holdover proceeding initiated by a petitioner landlord against Shaniquca Cole, who claims succession rights to a rent-stabilized apartment after the death of the tenant of record, Thelma Williams, on June 10, 2013. Cole asserts she was a member of Williams' immediate family and that the apartment was their primary residence for two years prior to Williams' death. The core issue is the admissibility of Williams' hospital records, offered by the petitioner, which contain statements from which adverse inferences about Cole's residency could be drawn. Respondent objected to these records as hearsay, but the court, referencing relevant case law, ruled that discharge planning statements within hospital records are admissible as part of a patient's treatment. The court denied the respondent's motion to bar the evidence, emphasizing that admissibility does not equate to probative weight.

Holdover proceedingSuccession rightsRent stabilizationHospital recordsHearsay exceptionBusiness recordsDischarge planMedical evidencePrimary residenceTenant rights
References
7
Case No. ADJ603568 (MON 0359075)
Regular
Feb 22, 2013

COLEE PITCHFORD vs. TRIMAC TRANSPORTATION, CHARTIS

In Pitchford v. Trimac Transportation, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was primarily based on the petition's failure to comply with Labor Code section 5905, which mandates service on all adverse parties. The WCAB also noted that even if properly served, the petition would have been denied on its merits, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. Finally, the Board clarified that MJR Management Services, Inc. is not a party but an alleged representative, and their representation of a lien claimant lacked proper documentation in the EAMS.

Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5905Adverse partiesService deficiencyWorkers' compensation administrative law judgeReport and RecommendationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSLien claimantMJR Management Services
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 1998

Cole v. Rappazzo Electric Co.

Plaintiff Cole, a field technician, was allegedly injured by inhaling fumes at a New York Telephone Company (NYTel) renovation site during a renovation project. The fumes originated from the work of a subcontractor, B.U.D. Sheet Metal, Inc., hired by prime contractor Rappazzo Electric Company, Inc. Cole filed suit against NYTel and Rappazzo, alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 violations. The Supreme Court partially denied motions for summary judgment by NYTel and Rappazzo. On cross appeals, the appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding NYTel's and Rappazzo's supervisory control over the worksite, thereby precluding summary judgment on the negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims.

Common-law negligenceLabor Law § 200Summary judgmentWorksite safetySubcontractor liabilityOwner liabilityContractor liabilityFumes inhalationPersonal injuryWorkers' Compensation Law exclusivity
References
11
Case No. 11 Civ. 8967; 12 Civ. 1364
Regular Panel Decision

Geron ex rel. Thelen LLP v. Robinson & Cole LLP

This case involves a Chapter 7 trustee, Yann Geron, for the dissolved law firm Thelen LLP, who brought fraudulent transfer claims against Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Robinson & Cole LLP. The trustee sought to recover profits from former Thelen partners, arguing that pending hourly fee matters are assets of the dissolved firm. The court ruled that under New York law, pending hourly fee matters are not partnership assets, granting Seyfarth Shaw's motion. However, under California law, such matters could be considered assets if profits exceed 'reasonable compensation,' leading to the denial of Robinson & Cole's motion. The court also certified the order for interlocutory appeal, citing controlling legal questions and substantial grounds for differing opinions on the unfinished business doctrine.

Law Firm BankruptcyUnfinished Business DoctrinePartnership AssetsFraudulent Transfer ClaimsHourly Fee MattersContingency Fee MattersChoice of Law DisputeNew York LawCalifornia LawInterlocutory Appeal
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Madden v. Creative Services, Inc.

Plaintiffs George Madden and Roseanne Cohen filed a diversity action against Ralph Douglas Howe, Jr., Michael Sean Cole, National Amusements, Inc., Creative Services, Inc., Sklar, and Redstone. The suit arose from a break-in into the plaintiffs' attorney's office by Howe and Cole, employees of Creative Services, which was hired by National Amusements to investigate opposition to a proposed theater complex. Plaintiffs alleged various torts including intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, interference with attorney-client privilege, unlawful search and seizure, and negligent infliction of emotional harm. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint, finding that the alleged conduct did not meet the legal thresholds for the claimed torts under New York law and declined to create new causes of action. Consequently, all principal and derivative claims were dismissed.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressConversionAttorney-Client PrivilegeUnlawful Search and SeizureNegligent Infliction of Emotional HarmLoss of ConsortiumMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentFederal Rules of Civil ProcedurePleading Standards
References
26
Case No. CAF 12-00796
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2013

COLE, HEATHER A. v. NOFRI, MICHAEL JAMES

This case concerns an appeal to the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, regarding a Family Court order dismissing a mother's petition for custody modification. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, finding a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a custody modification. The court noted the parents' remarriages, additional children, and the subject child's strong desire to live with the mother due to anxiety in the father's home. Consequently, the Appellate Division granted primary physical custody to the mother and awarded visitation to the father, remitting the matter to Family Court for establishing a visitation schedule. A dissenting justice argued against overturning the original custody arrangement, emphasizing the child's young age, the father's long-standing primary custody, and the lack of expert testimony regarding the child's expressed anxieties.

custody modificationchild's best interestsappellate reviewfamily courtphysical custodyvisitation rightschange in circumstanceschild's preferenceparental remarriagechild anxiety
References
13
Case No. CA 15-01752
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2016

FAWCETT, JASON v. STEARNS, FRANKLYN COLE

Plaintiffs Jason and Cynthia Fawcett appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, which granted summary judgment to defendant Franklyn Cole Stearns, dismissing their Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims. The plaintiffs sought damages for injuries sustained by Jason Fawcett when he fell from a roof while renovating defendant's cottage. The core issue was the applicability of the homeowner exemption from liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, found that the defendant met the burden of establishing the exemption, as the renovation work served both residential and commercial purposes, thereby shielding him from strict liability. The court affirmed the lower court's order.

Homeowner ExemptionLabor LawPremises LiabilityStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentRenovation WorkSecond Home
References
12
Case No. ADJ6413644
Regular
Apr 24, 2009

JANICE HOWELL vs. NATIONAL MENTOR HOLDINGS, dba COLE VOCATIONAL SERVICES, administered by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. The petition also sought removal, which was denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The underlying issues, such as an order compelling medical record production, are interlocutory procedural matters not subject to reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and recommendation, denying both reconsideration and removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightRemovalWCJ Report and RecommendationStipulationsOrder Compelling Production of RecordsDiscovery ProcessPrivacy
References
11
Case No. ADJ9076607
Regular
Nov 15, 2018

VALERIE COLES vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal filed by the applicant, Valerie Coles, against the County of Alameda. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, ruling that the WCJ's decision was not a "final" order as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, not substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would necessitate this extraordinary remedy. Therefore, the applicant's attempts to challenge the interim decision through these procedural avenues were unsuccessful.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural IssueEvidentiary Issue
References
6
Case No. ADJ9967699, ADJ9967700
Regular
May 05, 2017

MARIA CUCCIA COLE vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTHPLAN, SEDGWICK KAISER LEXINGTON

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Maria Cuccia Cole. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied this petition, finding that removal is an extraordinary remedy that requires a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge, concluding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate such harm or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the WCAB affirmed the denial of the Petition for Removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJ ReportSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedyCortez v. WCABKleemann v. WCABADJ9967699
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 37 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