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

In re Lindsay W.

The Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York appealed an order from the Family Court, Queens County, which effectively dismissed a proceeding to continue the placement of a neglected child, Lindsay W. The Family Court had denied the Commissioner's request for a temporary extension of placement, citing the process server's error in service as an invalid excuse. The appellate court ruled that the Family Court abused its discretion by not granting the temporary extension, finding that the Commissioner had shown 'good cause' through good-faith attempts to notify the respondent mother and an excusable process server misunderstanding. The case was reversed and remitted to the Family Court to determine if the Commissioner's initial petition for extension, filed 11 days late, was also for 'good cause', which would then lead to a merits hearing on the extension of placement.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActPlacement ExtensionService of ProcessAbuse of DiscretionGood CauseParental RightsAppellate ReviewRemittiturTimely Filing
References
6
Case No. ADJ1273904 (MON 0236591) ADJ164684 (MON 0236590)
Regular
Feb 05, 2020

BETTY BAUER vs. RIP GRIFFIN, CIGA on behalf of HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision dismisses a lien claimant's Petition for Removal. The petition was filed after the administrative law judge (WCJ) scheduled trial and denied a continuance request. However, the WCJ subsequently issued an order continuing the matter, rendering the Petition for Removal automatically dismissed. Consequently, the WCAB will not consider the lien claimant's supplemental pleading request.

Petition for RemovalWCJlien claimantautomatically dismissedsupplemental pleadingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGAliquidationadministrative law judgetrial
References
0
Case No. Misc. No. 254
En Banc
Jan 20, 2012

Applicant vs. Respondent

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Daniel Escamilla's Petition for Change of Venue, denied his Request for an Immediate Stay, but granted his Petition for Removal. The decision affirmed the relieving of his counsel and continued the hearing to provide a final opportunity to obtain new counsel.

Petition for Change of VenuePetition for RemovalRequest for Immediate Stay of ProceedingsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)Relief of CounselDue ProcessQuasi-Criminal NatureLabor Code Section 5501.6Labor Code Section 4907
References
1
Case No. Misc. No. 254
Significant
Jan 20, 2012

vs. Daniel Escamilla

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismisses a petition for change of venue, denies a request for a stay, but grants a petition for removal. The Board affirms the order relieving the petitioner's counsel, continues the hearing, and sets a new pre-hearing conference schedule to allow the petitioner a final opportunity to obtain new counsel and prepare his case.

Petition for RemovalPetition for Change of VenueWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJRelief of CounselDue ProcessQuasi-Criminal ProceedingDelegation of AuthorityOffer of ProofSuspension or Removal of Privilege
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2002

In re the Claim of Kearse

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which upheld its prior ruling that the claimant's request for a hearing was untimely. The claimant had been disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits due to misconduct and charged with an overpayment, but failed to request a review hearing for several months, mistakenly believing her workers' compensation case was related. The Board, upon reconsideration, adhered to its finding that the request was untimely. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that a claimant typically has 30 days to request a hearing unless there is a valid excuse. The court also declined to consider the claimant's belated assertions of post-traumatic stress disorder as a justification for the delay.

Unemployment BenefitsUntimely RequestMisconduct DischargeOverpaymentWorkers' CompensationPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderAppellate ReviewHearing TimelinessAdministrative DecisionNew York Appellate Division
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Domanico v. Woodmere Fire District

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 4, 2005, which denied an employer's request for reimbursement of wages paid to a claimant during a period of disability. The court examined whether a June 24, 2004 notice, issued by the self-insured employer, Woodmere Fire District, containing language about reimbursement, was sufficient as a request under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a). The court found the notice to be sufficient in form. However, a critical issue remained regarding the timeliness of this request; specifically, whether it was filed prior to the compensation award made at the January 7, 2005 hearing. Due to this unresolved issue, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to determine the timeliness of the reimbursement request.

Workers' Compensation ReimbursementEmployer Wage ReimbursementDisability WagesTimeliness of Reimbursement RequestWorkers' Compensation LawBoard Decision AppealJudicial ReversalRemittal for Further ProceedingsNew York Workers' CompensationStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Maffei v. Russin Lumber Corp.

The claimant, a lumber company manager, filed a workers' compensation claim established for occupational asthma and consequential atrial fibrillation. The case was expedited for permanency hearings. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier had video surveillance but failed to bring it to a scheduled expedited hearing, requesting a continuance after the claimant testified. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied the adjournment request, finding no emergency and classifying the claimant with a permanent total disability. The Workers' Compensation Board, on full Board review, upheld the WCLJ's decision, concluding that no emergency existed to justify a continuance for the carrier to produce the video. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the carrier was afforded due process and waived arguments regarding misrepresentation and the propriety of the expedited calendar transfer.

Video SurveillanceExpedited HearingAdjournment DenialDue ProcessPermanent Total DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulesEmergency ExceptionWaiver of Issues
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bland v. Gellman

A claimant had two workers' compensation claims, one managed by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases and the other by Travelers Insurance Company, with liability equally apportioned. The claimant's treating physician requested a variance for aquatic therapy, which both carriers denied. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge approved the treatment, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, asserting that the variance request form (MG-2) was not properly served on the Board and that the review request was untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the MG-2 form was timely filed with the Board, referencing both claim numbers, and that the request for review of the denial was also timely. The court concluded that the Board's determination lacked substantial evidence and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Variance RequestAquatic TherapyClaim DenialMG-2 FormTimely FilingAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesTravelers Insurance CompanySubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. ADJ8897986
Regular
Feb 22, 2019

DOUG BROCK vs. PLACER COUNTY, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by INTERCARE ROSEVILLE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to a lien claimant for photocopying services. The Board overturned the WCJ's decision, which had barred claims for services over 18 months prior to the lien filing date. The Board found that, similar to ongoing medical treatment, a series of connected record requests constituted a continuing pattern, justifying the lien filing based on the last date of service. The case was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation.

Med-Legal PhotocopyLien ClaimStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 4903.5(a)Petition for ReconsiderationCumulative Trauma InjuryCorrectional OfficerCompromise and ReleaseSubpoenasOngoing Medical Treatment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCormack International Corp. v. Vohra

McCormack International Corp. brought an action against multiple defendants under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), alleging mail fraud, wire fraud, and extortion. The plaintiff claimed that defendants used a scheme involving bad checks and threats from an organized crime figure to remove McCormack from a Tudor Hotel renovation project. The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, dismissing the RICO claims for failure to establish a 'pattern of racketeering activity,' specifically lacking sufficient allegations of furtherance of fraud by mail and continuity of criminal activity for extortion. Additionally, the court denied plaintiff's request for leave to amend the complaint, rejected defendants' motion for sanctions, and denied plaintiff's motion for a retroactive enlargement of time to file objections to a prior report.

RICORacketeeringMail FraudWire FraudExtortionCivil ProcedureMotion to DismissRule 9(b)Rule 12(b)(6)Sanctions
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 4,201 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