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
Nov 29, 2004

Velella v. New York Local Condotional Release Commission

The petitioners, including Gonzalez, Caba, Stephens, Velella, and DelToro, challenged determinations by the Conditional Release Commission and the Department of Correction. These determinations advised petitioners that their conditional releases were invalid and directed them to surrender. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied their five CPLR article 78 petitions. This appellate court unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the petitioners' conditional releases illegal due to non-compliance with Correction Law § 273 (1) and (6). The court also ruled that the agencies had the power to set aside determinations based on significant irregularities and that the petitioners had no substantive due process right to illegal orders, having been afforded adequate procedural due process through the CPLR article 78 proceedings.

Conditional ReleaseCorrection Law ViolationsDue ProcessArticle 78 PetitionAgency AuthorityIllegal ReleaseStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewGovernment EstoppelNew York Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 1984

Polito v. Polito

The plaintiff appealed a judgment dismissing her complaint seeking rescission of a release and reformation of a deed, alleging duress. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially dismissed the complaint. The appellate court found ample evidence of the defendant's physical and emotional abuse, which compelled the plaintiff to sign the release, thus depriving her of free will. The court reversed the lower court's judgment, reinstated the complaint, and remitted the matter for entry of a judgment rescinding the release and reforming the deed to establish joint tenancy of the property.

DuressRescissionDeed ReformationDomestic ViolenceSpousal AbuseJoint TenancyEquitable ReliefAppellate ReviewFree WillRatification of Agreement
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lugo v. Gaines

This dissenting opinion concerns a petitioner's request for review of a determination terminating his participation in a temporary release program and for monetary damages. The petitioner, an inmate, was removed from the program after a urine sample tested positive for cocaine. The dissent argues that the procedures followed, despite a lack of formal chain of custody documentation, did not violate the petitioner's due process rights, as strict rules of evidence are not required in such disciplinary proceedings. Citing judicial precedent, the dissenting judges emphasize that an inmate's constitutional protections are diminished by institutional needs. Therefore, they would affirm the termination of the petitioner's work release program.

temporary release programdrug testingdue processinmate rightscorrectional facilitiesadministrative hearingchain of custodyurine analysisArticle 78State liability
References
8
Case No. ADJ2244538 (LAO 0883304)
Regular
Jul 29, 2011

MELVIN ISAAC vs. PARAMOUNT PICTURES

This case involves the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removing a matter on its own motion to review a Compromise and Release (C&R) order. The WCAB issued a Notice of Intention to approve the C&R with addenda, allowing parties 20 days to object. As no objections were received, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's prior approval and entered a new order approving the C&R with the addenda. The cases are now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalCompromise and ReleaseAddendaWCJ OrderRescindedApprovedTrial LevelParamount PicturesMelvin Isaac
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1992

Seelig v. Sielaff

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially issued a judgment enjoining respondents from releasing the social security numbers of correction officers without their consent and ordered the implementation of privacy safeguards. This judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal, vacated, and the proceeding was converted to one for a declaratory judgment. The appellate court declared that the release of correction officers' social security numbers by the respondents, in response to a Public Officers Law § 87 request, constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy under Public Officers Law § 89 (2), citing federal precedents. The injunctive relief previously granted was also deemed improper as the Personal Privacy Protection Law (Public Officers Law § 92 [1]) exempts local government units and the judiciary from its provisions.

Freedom of Information LawPrivacy InvasionSocial Security NumbersCorrection OfficersPublic Officers LawDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewGovernment RecordsConfidentialityCPLR Article 78
References
9
Case No. WCK0071378
Regular
Aug 07, 2008

KEN RYERSON vs. NESTLE COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured, adjusted by SEDGWICK

This case involves a worker's compensation appeal concerning temporary disability and vocational rehabilitation rates. However, the parties submitted a compromise and release agreement for $140,000.00 to settle all claims, including potential death benefits for dependents. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded its prior decision, and approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the applicant's best interest, considering the release of death benefits and the absence of specific vocational rehabilitation protections.

Compromise and ReleaseVocational Rehabilitation Delay RateThomas FindingRogers ReleaseDeath BenefitsCumulative Industrial InjuryBilateral Upper ExtremitiesNeckSpineBack
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. ADJ7065460, ADJ7065466
Regular
Jun 26, 2012

JOAN LOCKWOOD vs. SAN DIEGO VOLVO, COMP WEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Joan Lockwood's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed late. The original Order Approving Compromise and Release was issued on November 3, 2011, and the petition was not filed within the statutory 20-day period plus 5 days for mailing. Even if the petition had been timely, the Board would have denied it on the merits based on the administrative law judge's report. The applicant's supplemental petition did not alter this decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judge ReportCompromise and ReleaseLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013DismissalSupplemental PetitionCal. Code Regs tit. 8 § 10848
References
1
Case No. ADJ8350670
Regular
Jun 24, 2014

SALOMON LOPEZ vs. D & T FOODS, ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE CO.

This case involves a dispute over the approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) in a workers' compensation claim. The applicant sustained injuries to his back, legs, and abdomen. The WCJ issued an order requiring further medical evaluation despite the parties filing an amended C&R. The defendant petitioned for removal, arguing the WCJ's order was inappropriate. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the WCJ's order, and approved the amended C&R, awarding the applicant a net recovery of $15,335.71.

Petition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseWCJ OrderQME evaluationAME evaluationabdominal aspectsdriver unloaderindustrial injurypermanent disability advancesattorney's fee
References
0
Case No. ADJ10765191
Regular
May 18, 2018

LARHONISH CAREY vs. MOLINA HEALTHCARE, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY

Applicant's attorneys seek reconsideration of a $0.00 attorney's fee award where their Compromise and Release contemplated a $1,350.00 fee. The Board granted reconsideration, finding procedural errors in the attorney's fee disclosure forms and the signing of the C&R by a non-attorney representative. The Board will affirm the $0.00 fee award unless the attorneys correct these deficiencies within 15 days.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAttorney FeesLabor Code section 4906WCAB Rule 10773Non-attorney Hearing RepresentativeFee Disclosure StatementAttorney DisclosureExpedited Trial Hearing
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,154 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