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
Apr 12, 1999

Craig v. Boudrot

Plaintiff Kelly Craig sued the New York branch of the Screen Actor’s Guild (NYSAG) to compel a run-off election for a board of directors seat after a tie with incumbent Jonathan Derwin. NYSAG delayed the run-off, citing a pending Department of Labor (DOL) investigation and concerns about practicability and cost. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kaplan, found NYSAG’s refusal to hold the run-off violated its own Rules of Procedure and lacked good faith, demonstrating an intent to favor Derwin. The court granted an injunction mandating the run-off election to protect union members' voting rights. However, Craig's claims regarding the choice of ballot counter and the immediate removal of Derwin were dismissed, the latter for non-joinder.

Union ElectionsLabor LawVoting RightsInjunctionRun-off ElectionBoard of DirectorsLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActUnion GovernanceJudicial ReviewBallot Dispute
References
15
Case No. ADJ6973825
Regular
May 21, 2012

MONICA BENARD vs. JENNY CRAIG, SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns a penalty imposed on Jenny Craig for unreasonably delaying authorization for applicant Monica Benard's chiropractic treatment. The WCJ found a 25% penalty for the delay, which Jenny Craig appealed, arguing the delay was due to the applicant's choice of a chiropractor outside their Medical Provider Network (MPN). The Appeals Board affirmed the unreasonable delay finding but reduced the penalty to 20% of the delayed treatment's value, citing a failure in case management rather than intentional disregard. Jurisdiction was reserved for the parties to adjust the penalty amount.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardMonica BenardJenny CraigSedgwick CMSADJ6973825ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code section 5814Medical Provider Network (MPN)chiropractic treatment
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DaBiere v. Craig

Plaintiffs Clement and Anita DaBiere sued defendants for personal injuries sustained when they slipped and fell on an external stairway at defendants' partially completed home. The plaintiffs alleged negligence due to a slippery condition and lack of handrails. The jury found defendants negligent but not the proximate cause of injuries. The Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' motion to set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial. Defendants appealed this decision. The appellate court found that the jury's verdict could be fairly interpreted based on the evidence presented regarding proximate cause. Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision to set aside the verdict was deemed an improvident exercise of discretion. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied the plaintiffs' motion, and reinstated the jury's original verdict.

Premises LiabilityPersonal InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseAppellate ReviewJury VerdictSetting Aside VerdictNew TrialLandowner DutyHandrails
References
12
Case No. ADJ9517344
Regular
Mar 01, 2019

Craig Marcom vs. Twin Rivers Unified School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal in Case No. ADJ9517344. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found the applicant failed to demonstrate these grounds and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportFinal DecisionAdverse DecisionCase ADJ9517344
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marley v. Ibelli

J. Craig Marley, a former employee of the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum, sued his co-workers, Juliette Ibelli and Cordelia Rose, for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with a contract. The defendants, federal employees of the Smithsonian Institution, removed the case to federal court, seeking to substitute the United States as the defendant and to dismiss the claims. The court granted the substitution, finding the co-workers acted within the scope of employment. It then dismissed the assault, battery, and tortious interference claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act's intentional torts exception, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim for failing to meet the outrageous conduct standard. Marley's motions to remand and amend his complaint were denied.

Federal Tort Claims ActFTCAWestfall ActSovereign ImmunityScope of EmploymentIntentional Torts ExceptionAssaultBatteryIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressTortious Interference with Contract
References
24
Case No. ADJ226519 (SDO 0302236) ADJ488924 (SDO 0329999)
Regular
May 23, 2011

Craig Stevens vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the applicant, Craig Stevens, sought removal of an order continuing his case to a mandatory settlement conference. Stevens contended entitlement to temporary disability and spinal surgery, and alleged ex parte communication with the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), Dr. Harvey Wieseltier, necessitating his disqualification. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal, adopting the WCJ's report and noting the petition was not correctly verified. The underlying issues of medical treatment and temporary disability remain for future proceedings.

Petition for RemovalExpedited HearingMandatory Settlement ConferenceTemporary Disability IndemnitySpinal SurgeryAgreed Medical EvaluatorDisqualificationEx Parte CommunicationLine InstallerIndustrial Injuries
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Love v. N. Y. S. Craig School

The claimant, a senior attendant at Craig School, was granted a one-year educational leave with full pay to pursue practical nursing. While traveling from her home in Dansville to Monroe Community Hospital in Rochester for her studies, she was injured in an automobile collision. The Workmen's Compensation Board and the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed an award of benefits, finding her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment. Jasen, J., dissenting, argued that travel to and from employment is generally not a covered activity under the Workmen's Compensation Law unless necessitated by the particular type of employment. The dissent contended that the claimant had voluntarily changed her zone of employment to Monroe Community Hospital, and her travel risks were personal, not peculiar to her employment.

Educational leaveCourse of employmentTravel injuryCommuting ruleWorkers' compensation benefitsDissenting opinionZone of employmentSpecial mission doctrineEmployer benefitInjury during commute
References
3
Case No. ADJ488924 (SDO 0329999), ADJ226519 (SDO 0302236), ADJ2353553 (SDO 0250184), ADJ4021935 (SDO 0269434)
Regular
Dec 10, 2020

Craig Stevens vs. Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a previous order denying benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF). Applicant Craig Stevens sought SIBTF benefits for a claimed subsequent cumulative trauma injury to his neck ending April 2, 2009, with a compensable consequence injury to his right shoulder and low back. The WCAB found the medical evidence regarding the causation, date of injury, and permanent disability ratings for the alleged subsequent injuries, as well as prior injuries, to be insufficient and inconsistent. The case was returned to the trial level for further development of the record, including obtaining new medical opinions to clarify the various injuries and establish SIBTF eligibility thresholds.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTF eligibilitycumulative trauma injurycompensable consequence injurypermanent disabilityapportionmentmedical evidencecausationfurther development of the recordLabor Code section 4751
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gursky v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance

Anna Gursky, the plaintiff, sought to recover death benefits under an insurance policy from Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company (NML) after her husband's death. NML denied the claim due to alleged material misrepresentations in the insurance application regarding the insured's medical history. The case was originally filed in New York State court and removed to federal court by NML. Plaintiff moved to amend her complaint to include contractual fraud claims and join two non-diverse defendants, Craig R. Araujo and Pauline O’Brien, who were involved in the application process. The District Court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding the joinder permissible and equitable, which destroyed diversity jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court remanded the action back to the New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk County, without addressing NML's summary judgment motion.

Insurance Policy DisputeContractual FraudDiversity JurisdictionMotion to Amend ComplaintJoinder of PartiesRemand to State CourtFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 15Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 19Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 2028 U.S.C. § 1447
References
15
Case No. 657577/19
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2025

McMillian v. Out-Look Safety LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted class certification to plaintiffs Craig McMillian, Eian McMillian, and Victor Ballast. The plaintiffs, identified as non-union construction "flaggers," asserted that they were unlawfully paid below the prevailing wage for public works projects in New York City, having been misclassified as "crossing guards" or "traffic control." The lawsuit targeted Out-Look Safety LLC, Restani Construction Corp., Triumph Construction Corp., Elecnor Hawkeye, LLC, and Safeway Construction Enterprises, LLC. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, determining that the plaintiffs had adequately demonstrated the prerequisites for class certification under CPLR 901(a), including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and superiority. Additionally, the Appellate Division concurred that the Supreme Court's modified class definition successfully circumvented the creation of an impermissible "fail-safe" class.

Class certificationPrevailing wage disputeConstruction flaggersMisclassificationCPLR 901(a) factorsNumerosityCommonalityTypicalitySuperiorityFail safe class
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 47 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