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
Jun 22, 1992

Claim of Torres v. T A D Technical Services Corp.

The claimant, a laborer, injured his left foot on the job. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the claimant was permanently partially disabled, experiencing continuing pain and requiring ongoing medical treatment, thus warranting continuing disability benefits over a schedule loss award. The employer appealed, arguing a denial of due process due to the absence of medical testimony and cross-examination. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the continuing disability award, and no prejudice resulted from the lack of cross-examination as experts agreed on the claimant's condition, only disagreeing on the classification as a schedule loss.

Workers' Compensation AppealPermanent Partial DisabilityContinuing Disability BenefitsSchedule Loss EvaluationMedical EvidenceDue Process RightsCross-ExaminationSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate Court DecisionOccupational Injury
References
4
Case No. 2023-06-5023
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2024

Swanson, Darold v. Facility Installation Service

The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims at Nashville addressed motions in the case of Darold Swanson. Swanson filed a petition alleging a COVID-19 work-related injury from August 2021, seeking benefits from Facility Installation Service, Auto Owners Ins. Co., and the Subsequent Injury and Vocational Recovery Fund. The employer moved to dismiss the petition, citing that it was filed nearly two years post-injury, thus exceeding the one-year statute of limitations. Swanson also filed a motion to continue, claiming incapacitation, but failed to appear at the hearing or provide adequate support. Judge Joshua D. Baker denied Swanson's motion to continue and granted the employer's motion to dismiss with prejudice, ruling that the claim was time-barred and no tolling exceptions applied.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissCOVID-19 ClaimTimelinessTolling DoctrineIncapacity ClaimFailure to AppearProcedural DismissalTennessee Workers' Compensation Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 1992

Spiegel v. Perales

Petitioner was terminated from State employment after accumulating more than one year of absence due to an occupational injury, receiving workers' compensation benefits. She challenged the termination, arguing that her employer misinterpreted Civil Service Law § 71, contending that the law required a continuous year of absence, not a cumulative one. The court, citing a companion case (Matter of Allen v Howe), deferred to the interpretation of the Civil Service Law by the Department of Civil Service regulations. Consequently, the court found the petitioner's termination was lawful and upheld the dismissal of her petition.

Workers' CompensationEmployment TerminationCivil Service LawStatutory InterpretationCumulative AbsenceContinuous AbsenceAdministrative DeferenceCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewOccupational Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ4414177 (SJO O246537)
Regular
Dec 14, 2012

ELSE OLESEN vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFIT TRUST FUND of the STATE Of CALIFORNIA, et. al.

This case involves a workers' compensation attorney seeking reconsideration and removal of a \$200 sanction imposed by a WCJ for missing a mandatory settlement conference. The attorney argued he lacked due process and had a valid reason for his absence, including an agreement with opposing counsel for a continuance and his client being out of the country. The Board dismissed the removal petition as the order was final and denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the attorney failed to properly request a continuance and instead unilaterally decided not to attend. A dissenting commissioner argued sanctions were not warranted as the attorney's actions did not rise to the level of bad faith, frivolous tactics, or unnecessary delay, citing the agreement with opposing counsel and no prior history of similar conduct.

Subsequent Injuries Benefit Trust FundOrder Imposing SanctionsMandatory Settlement ConferencePetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to Impose SanctionsDue ProcessGood CauseContinuanceLabor Code section 5313(a)
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Howe

Petitioners Allen and Spiegel, State employees, challenged their termination by respondents after cumulative one-year absences due to occupational injuries, arguing Civil Service Law § 71 required a continuous one-year absence. Petitioner Allen also alleged equal protection and due process violations, claiming disparate treatment compared to employees with non-occupational injuries under Civil Service Law § 73. The Court upheld the respondents' interpretation of Civil Service Law § 71 as rational and in furtherance of the State's interest in an efficient civil service. It rejected the equal protection and due process claims, finding the distinction between occupational and ordinary injuries to be rational and not in violation of constitutional guarantees. The Appellate Division's orders were affirmed.

Civil Service LawOccupational InjuryDisability LeaveEmployee TerminationEqual ProtectionDue ProcessAdministrative InterpretationStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsState Employees
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gooshaw v. Village of Massena

A firefighter for the Village of Massena sustained work-related shoulder injuries in 1989, leading him to stop work in March 1990. His applications for accidental disability retirement benefits were denied, and the Village took no action on his request for General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits despite a Workers' Compensation Board award. The Village dismissed him in February 1993 for continuous absence due to a non-occupational disability, under Civil Service Law § 73. The petitioner's CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging his dismissal was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the petitioner received due process and the dismissal was supported by substantial medical evidence that his absence was not work-related; claims regarding General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits were deemed not properly before the court.

Firefighter dismissalWork-related injuryAccidental disability retirement benefitsGeneral Municipal Law § 207-aCivil Service Law § 73CPLR Article 78 proceedingDue processSubstantial evidence reviewNon-occupational disabilityAppellate review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1954

Peters v. New York City Housing Authority

The court granted the motion concerning the continued occupancy rights of the tenants. This decision affects the ongoing residency of individuals currently living in the property. Furthermore, an associated appeal has been formally scheduled to be heard and argued before the Court of Appeals. This hearing is slated to occur during its session in May of 1954.

References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06000 [187 AD3d 1395]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2020

Matter of Capraro v. Matrix Absence Mgt.

Claimant, a home-based claims examiner, was injured while moving unassembled new office furniture to his home office after his employer declined to cover the expense. He applied for workers' compensation benefits, but both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim, ruling that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The Board had applied a novel, rigid standard for at-home employees, limiting compensability to injuries during regular work hours and active work duties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found this new standard unsupported by precedent and inconsistent with the remedial nature of the Workers' Compensation Law, emphasizing that a regular pattern of work at home makes the residence a place of employment. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter, instructing the Board to apply the long-established standard to determine if the activity was "purely personal" or "reasonable and sufficiently work related."

Workers' CompensationArising out of employmentCourse of employmentWork-from-home injuryOffice furniturePersonal activity vs. work-relatedAppellate reviewRemittalBoard decision reversalHome as workplace
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pre' Catelan, Inc. v. International Federation of Workers

The plaintiff, a restaurant business operating an 'open shop' called Pre’ Catelan, sought an injunction against striking workers and their union. The strike, initiated without warning, involved picketing and alleged acts of violence, intimidation, and assault against employees and patrons, resulting in severe injuries to some workers. The defendants denied these charges, claiming peaceful picketing and attributing any disturbances to strangers, arguing the strike was due to the plaintiff's intention to destroy the union. The court, citing established principles regarding lawful picketing and the protection of workers' rights, found that the presented proof established aggravated assaults and threats. Consequently, the motion to continue the injunction pendente lite was granted.

StrikePicketingInjunctionLabor DisputeViolenceIntimidationAssaultThreatsOpen ShopClosed Shop
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jabril P.

The case concerns a proceeding under New York State Social Services Law § 392 to determine whether three children should remain in foster care. This court was directed by the Appellate Division, First Department, to provide findings after reversing previous orders to discharge the children to their parents. A new hearing in 1980 found the father unfit due to his demanding nature and inability to understand the children's needs. The mother, while in remission from prior issues, remained questionable in her ability to cope with the stress of the children's return, especially given the father's attitude and the return of an older son from prison. The court, balancing parental rights with the children's best interests, granted the agency's petition for continued foster care until March 1, 1981, imposing several conditions on the parents and the agency.

Foster CareParental RightsSocial Services LawChild WelfareFamily LawChild CustodyAppellate DivisionUnfitnessPsychiatric TreatmentVisitation
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 2,840 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