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
Mar 16, 2001

Constance v. State University of New York Health Science Center

Plaintiffs, Vernal and Navella Constance, sued State University of New York Health Science Center (SUNY HSC) for allegedly failing to provide a sign language interpreter, violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Mrs. Constance, who is deaf, received emergency treatment at SUNY HSC in 1996, where she and her husband requested an interpreter, but none was provided. The Hospital claimed to have a policy for hearing-impaired patients and asserted it requested an interpreter from an agency, but it failed to appear. The Court denied Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief, finding they lacked standing due to insufficient likelihood of future encounters with the Hospital. Furthermore, the Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the issue of damages, determining that the Hospital's failure to follow up on the interpreter request, while possibly negligent, did not amount to deliberate indifference necessary to establish intentional discrimination under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act.

ADA ComplianceRehabilitation ActSign Language InterpreterDisability RightsMedical CommunicationSummary JudgmentStanding LawInjunctive ReliefDeliberate IndifferenceIntentional Discrimination
References
8
Case No. ANA 0339254ANA 0339253
Regular
Aug 04, 2008

CONSTANCE VOIGT vs. BOEING COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY of the STATE of PENNSYLVANIA, AIG CLAIMS SERVICES, A.A.S.I., ARGONAUT INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the award to grant retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) at the applicant's temporary disability rate, finding that repealed vocational rehabilitation statutes still apply to pre-2004 injuries. However, the Board affirmed the exclusion of the period the applicant was temporarily disabled due to non-industrial causes. The applicant's contention that the defendant's appeal was untimely was also denied.

WCABConstance VoigtBoeing CompanyVRMAGodinez v. BuffetsInc.Rehabilitation Unittemporary disabilitydelay rateLabor Code 139.5
References
18
Case No. ADJ10788244
Regular
Jun 05, 2019

CONSTANCE STOREY vs. ALHAMBRA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK RISK SERVICES, INC.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves an applicant, Constance Storey, against the Alhambra Unified School District. The Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and dismissed her Petition for Removal. The WCJ's finding of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment was deemed a final order, making removal inappropriate. The Board adopted the WCJ's credibility determinations, giving them great weight due to the opportunity to observe witnesses.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJ reportAOE/COEcredibility determinationsfinal ordersubstantive rightthreshold issueremoval standard
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seventh Judicial District Asbestos Litigation v. Anchor Packing Co.

The provided text outlines a legal decision in the case of Constance F. Polito against several defendants, including Burns International Services Corporation, Daimler-Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation. The plaintiff's husband died from mesothelioma, allegedly due to asbestos exposure from the defendants' brake products. The court ruled on three motions in limine. The first two motions, seeking to exclude evidence related to workers' compensation claims, plant conditions, and documents from industrial health associations, were denied. The court found this evidence relevant to the defendants' knowledge of asbestos risks. The third motion, aimed at excluding deposition testimony and an affidavit from expert witness Ralph A. Froehlich, was granted, as the court deemed them inadmissible hearsay and rejected the argument of adoptive admissions.

AsbestosMesotheliomaMotions in LimineWorkers Compensation ClaimsPlant ConditionsHearsayExpert WitnessAdoptive AdmissionsState-of-the-Art EvidenceBrake Products
References
11
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 09275 [178 AD3d 1057]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2019

Oliver v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.

The plaintiff, Constance Oliver, commenced a medical malpractice action against New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., alleging errors during a January 2014 surgery at Kings County Hospital Center and a subsequent failure to timely diagnose and treat an incisional hernia. The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding the defendant's expert affirmation insufficient to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, particularly regarding the allegations of delayed diagnosis and treatment and speculative causation arguments.

Medical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentIncisional HerniaProximate CauseTimely DiagnosisAppellate ReviewExpert TestimonyBurden of ProofHospital NegligenceKings County Hospital
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Bank Note Co. v. State Division of Human Rights

This case concerns a petitioner challenging a determination by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which had affirmed a decision from the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The original finding stated that the petitioner discriminated against Lorraine Voigt and other female employees regarding pregnancy-related disability benefits. The court annulled the board's determination, concluding there was no substantial evidence to support the finding of discrimination. The petitioner had denied Ms. Voigt's claim as untimely according to section 217 of the Disability Benefits Law. The court found that the Human Rights Law does not compel an employer to pay benefits for pregnancy-related disability if the employer would not pay similar disability claims for male employees under the same timeliness rules, which the petitioner consistently applied.

Pregnancy DiscriminationDisability Benefits LawHuman Rights LawTimeliness of ClaimSex DiscriminationEqual TreatmentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewAnnulmentSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Constance B. v. Joan M.

This case involves a motion to quash a judicial subpoena duces tecum issued by respondent Joan M. The subpoena sought all records pertaining to Sonya M. from Under 21, a private, not-for-profit corporation serving runaway and homeless youths. The underlying matter is a petition where Sonya M.'s mother and her paramour, Robert B., are charged with child abuse and neglect. The court determined that the information sought was irrelevant to the neglect proceeding, deeming it a "fishing expedition." Crucially, the court found that Under 21 is legally prohibited from disclosing such information due to the confidentiality provisions of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act of 1978 (Executive Law, art 19-H, § 532 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (9 NYCRR 182.1 et seq.). The court emphasized the legislative intent to protect the confidentiality of runaway youth records, noting that the Family Court Act § 1046's exceptions to privilege do not extend to runaway home records. The court granted the motion to quash, affirming that the cloak of confidentiality for runaway homes shall not be broken without the youth's written consent.

ConfidentialityRunaway and Homeless Youth ActSubpoena Duces TecumChild Abuse and NeglectFamily LawStatutory InterpretationDisclosure of RecordsYouth ServicesConfidential CommunicationsLegislative Intent
References
2
Case No. SJO 0196764, SJO 0196841
Regular
Nov 16, 2007

CONSTANCE KELLOGG vs. CITY OF SANTA CLARA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding industrial injury findings and permanent disability percentages. However, the Board granted the applicant's petition, amending the original award to reflect the correct temporary disability indemnity rate calculation under Labor Code § 4661.5, adjusting the weekly payments based on different time periods post-injury. This amendment ensures the applicant receives appropriate temporary disability payments based on the statutory wage adjustments over time.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code § 4453Labor Code § 4661.5Average Weekly WageIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ6973321
Regular
Jan 24, 2012

CONSTANCE PHILLIPS vs. UNITED HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INC., UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY INSURANCE

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought removal of an order denying their petition to compel the applicant to attend a medical evaluation with Dr. Blau. The defendant argued irreparable harm, as the prior QME was no longer serving and could not reevaluate the applicant's impairment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the reasoning of the WCJ and prior decisions. The denial upheld the order preventing the compelled medical evaluation.

Petition for RemovalOrder Denying Petition to Compel AttendanceLabor Code section 4050Qualified Medical EvaluatorDr. Robert Blausleep disorderincreased impairmentirreparable harmprejudiceWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ450115 (MON 0230555) ADJ1578833 (VNO 0399228)
Regular
Dec 15, 2008

CONSTANCE SHILLINGFORD vs. GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS, CAL. COMP, in liquidation by CIGA and ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, CAL. COMP, in liquidation by BROADSPIRE INSURANCE COMPANIES for CIGA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision. The WCAB rescinded the judge's decision and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision. This action means the original decision is not final, and the parties can again seek reconsideration after the WCJ issues a new ruling.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRescindedReturnedWCJCIGAZenith Insurance CompanyBroadspire Insurance CompaniesLiquidationAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 20 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