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
Jan 19, 2000

Claim of White v. Food

The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a decision ruling that the claimant had given timely notice of injury to their employer. The appellate court found no basis to disturb the Board's decision to credit the claimant's testimony, which was supported by his wife's testimony. The Board, as the sole and final arbiter of witness credibility, was within its authority to determine if the testimony was worthy of belief, even when faced with contradictory evidence from employer forms.

Workers' CompensationAppealTimely NoticeWitness CredibilityBoard DecisionAffirmationEmployer LiabilityInjury NotificationTestimony EvaluationAppellate Division
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S. Children

This child protective proceeding was initiated by The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children against a father accused of sexually abusing his young son, Scott, in the presence of his older son, Jonathan. When Jonathan, an alleged eyewitness, became reluctant to testify in his father's presence, the petitioner requested his testimony be taken in camera. The court denied this application, citing the respondent's due process right to confront witnesses and finding insufficient evidence of a pathological impact on the child. The court emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for in camera testimony in such cases and suggested legislative consideration for future procedures to balance child protection with parental rights.

Child Protective ProceedingIn Camera TestimonyDue Process RightsRight to ConfrontationChild WitnessSexual Abuse AllegationsFamily Court ActWitness ReluctanceBalancing of InterestsExclusion of Respondent
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04692
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2025

Matter of Kaius A. v. Abigail H.

Respondent Abigail H. appealed a Family Court order finding her guilty of neglecting her three children. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the neglect finding and dismissed the petition. The court held that the Administration for Children's Services (ACS) failed to meet its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, citing conflicting witness testimonies and a lack of corroborating evidence. Furthermore, the court found that the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to ACS's untimely filing of the petition and that the mother was deprived of her due process rights. The decision also highlighted that the Family Court unduly relied on contradictory testimony and improperly based its finding on allegations not included in the petition, while disregarding the mother's uncontroverted testimony.

Child NeglectFamily LawAppellate ProcedureDue Process ViolationSubject Matter JurisdictionBurden of ProofCredibility AssessmentSufficiency of EvidenceParental RightsChild Protective Services
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. ADJ8075448
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

ALEX ROBLES vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a trial judge's award in favor of applicant Alex Robles against Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). SCGC sought reconsideration, asserting that crucial testimony was omitted from the trial record. The WCAB ordered transcription of all trial testimony to ensure a full and fair adjudication of SCGC's petition. This action was necessary to allow the Board further study of the factual and legal issues involved.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAOE/COEGoing and Coming RuleMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceTrial TestimonyWCAB Rule 10740Transcript TranscriptionElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Washington v. Montefiore Hospital

Claimant, a mechanical engineer, sustained a work-related injury and received initial workers' compensation benefits. The employer later contested further disability, leading to a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) order for medical expert depositions, including one from the employer's expert, Robert Orlandi. Claimant's counsel objected to Orlandi's telephone deposition but failed to formally challenge the notice or raise a specific objection to the oath administration during the deposition. Orlandi's testimony, taken via telephone with the court reporter in New York and Orlandi in Connecticut, concluded that the claimant was no longer disabled. Both the WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board credited Orlandi's testimony, finding the claimant waived objections to the deposition's procedural irregularities. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the claimant's failure to make a timely and specific objection to the oath's administration during the deposition constituted a waiver, thus allowing the Board to properly rely on Orlandi's evidence.

Workers' CompensationMedical TestimonyDeposition ProcedureWaiver of ObjectionCPLROath AdministrationDisability AssessmentAppellate ReviewExpert WitnessProcedural Irregularities
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Morelli v. Tops Markets

Claimant, having sustained work-related injuries in 2007 and receiving benefits, was questioned by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) regarding work activities at a 2011 hearing. Immediately after, the employer and its carrier sought to introduce surveillance video and investigator testimony, alleging a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The WCLJ denied this request and precluded the evidence, ruling that the carrier failed to disclose the surveillance prior to the claimant's testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, reiterating the established requirement for timely disclosure of surveillance materials to prevent 'gamesmanship.' The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious action, as the carrier had an opportunity to disclose the evidence before prompting the WCLJ's questioning and before the claimant testified.

Workers' Compensation LawSurveillance EvidenceDisclosure ObligationPreclusion of EvidenceAppellate ReviewEvidence AdmissibilityClaimant TestimonyEmployer ResponsibilitiesCarrier ResponsibilitiesBoard Decision
References
11
Case No. FRE 236537
Regular
Jul 25, 2007

CLOUDY LORAN-GRANT vs. JIM CRAWFORD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding applicant's right knee injury AOE/COE. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found the applicant's testimony credible and noted inconsistencies in defense witnesses' statements. The judge concluded that while medical evidence was not conclusive, the applicant's candid and honest presentation, coupled with contradictory defense testimony, supported the finding of industrial injury.

AOE/COEReconsideration DeniedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardJudge's ReportCredibility FindingPreponderance of EvidenceInjury OnsetMedical EvidenceDefense Witnesses InconsistenciesApplicant Credibility
References
1
Case No. ADJ3014811 (SFO 0511804)
Regular
Jul 09, 2010

ROBERT SULLIVAN vs. TASTE CATERING, FIRST COMP OMAHA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award, rescinding the temporary disability rate calculated based on the applicant's estimated tip income. The Board found the applicant's uncorroborated testimony regarding tips lacked credibility, particularly due to contradictory tax return information. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, urging the parties to agree on earnings or present substantial evidence. This decision emphasizes that earnings calculations must be supported by substantial evidence, not just applicant testimony.

Average Weekly EarningsTips IncomeEDD Wage StatementIndustrial InjuryTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent and StationarySubstantial EvidenceCredible TestimonyTax ReturnUnderreported Tip Income
References
3
Case No. LAO 0869924
Regular
Jun 06, 2008

MIRNA SOSA vs. JESI-CARE, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant's claim for workers' compensation was denied because the evidence did not support her claim of an industrial injury, and the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and post-termination claim rules. The Board found the applicant's testimony regarding reporting the injury to be not credible, citing contradictory medical evidence and employer testimony. Because the applicant did not report the alleged injury within one year of its occurrence, the statute of limitations was not tolled, and the claim also failed as a post-termination claim due to lack of employer notice or medical records indicating injury prior to termination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardapplicant's claimstatute of limitationspost-termination claimcredible testimonyemployer noticemedical recordsdate of injuryindustrial injuryWCJ credibility determination
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,607 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