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

Peterson v. Continental Casualty Co.

Peterson sued Continental Casualty Company (CNA) seeking short- and long-term disability benefits under ERISA. CNA denied the claims, arguing Peterson was not disabled from a modified, sedentary desk job CBS assigned him after his injury. Peterson cross-moved for summary judgment and sought to add CBS as a defendant for failing to provide plan documents. The court denied both summary judgment motions, finding CNA's interpretation of Peterson's 'regular occupation' as the temporary desk job to be arbitrary and capricious. The court remanded both disability claims to the Claim Administrator to re-evaluate based on Peterson's actual regular occupation prior to his injury, noting that an 'accommodation' job is not the 'regular occupation'. Peterson's request to amend the complaint to add CBS was also denied due to lack of demonstrated prejudice and insufficient grounds for ERISA sanctions.

ERISADisability BenefitsSummary Judgment MotionArbitrary and Capricious StandardDe Novo ReviewClaim Administrator DiscretionRegular Occupation DefinitionTotal Disability DefinitionCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSpinal Cord Compression
References
17
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02568
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2019

Peterson v. Estate of John Rozansky

Elaine M. Peterson and David Peterson (later his estate) sued the Estate of John Rozansky for personal injuries after David Peterson was struck by Rozansky's vehicle. Rozansky had previously declined deposition citing dementia and subsequently died from Alzheimer's. Plaintiffs sought Rozansky's medical records, but the Supreme Court granted a protective order and denied plaintiffs' motion to strike the defendant's answer, a decision upheld upon reargument. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed, ruling that plaintiffs failed to show Rozansky's condition was 'in controversy' for CPLR 3121 (a) purposes, and neither Rozansky nor his estate waived physician-patient privilege. A dissenting opinion argued that Rozansky's refusal to be deposed due to dementia did place his condition in controversy, warranting medical record disclosure.

Personal InjuryMedical Records DiscoveryPhysician-Patient PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeProtective OrderDiscovery SanctionsStriking AnswerDementiaAlzheimer's DiseaseAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05049 [163 AD3d 577]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2018

Matter of Peterson v. Planning Bd. of the City of Poughkeepsie

This case concerns an appeal by Jeanette Peterson, representing the Historic Southside Neighborhood Association, challenging a lower court's decision that upheld a negative declaration issued by the Planning Board of the City of Poughkeepsie. The negative declaration was related to Thomas LaPerch's application for site plan approval to construct multi-family housing near a historic district. The Association argued that the Planning Board's determination violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by failing to adequately assess environmental impacts. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment, finding the Planning Board's issuance of a negative declaration arbitrary and capricious due to its conclusory findings regarding historic impact and its unsubstantiated claims about vegetation removal. The court remitted the matter to the Planning Board, ordering the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAPlanning BoardNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementHistoric PreservationJudicial ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousSite Plan ApprovalDutchess County
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. Xerox Corporation

Plaintiff Vanessa Patterson sued Xerox Corporation and Samuel Peterson, alleging discrimination based on national origin, race, and gender, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. She also included common law claims for negligent supervision and retention. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims. The court granted dismissal of Title VII claims against Peterson due to his status as a co-employee, and all common law negligence claims against both defendants, citing the exclusivity of the New York Worker's Compensation Law. However, the court denied dismissal of hostile work environment and retaliation claims against Xerox under Title VII, and against both Xerox and Peterson under the New York State Human Rights Law, finding them plausible and reasonably related to her EEOC charge.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawMotion to DismissEEOC ExhaustionIndividual LiabilityNegligent SupervisionWorker's Compensation Exclusivity
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Peterson

Richard Peterson was indicted on three counts: wire fraud, engaging in the business of insurance after a felony conviction, and money laundering. He moved to dismiss all counts for lack of venue and Count Two for vagueness. The court, presided over by District Judge Chin in the Southern District of New York, denied both motions. The court found that venue was proper due to significant New York contacts, including the use of local insurance brokerage companies and banks, and that the statute regarding engaging in the insurance business after a felony conviction was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Peterson's alleged actions as an insurance broker, clarifying that "willfully" does not require specific intent to violate the law.

Criminal LawWire FraudInsurance FraudMoney LaunderingVenueVagueness DoctrineFederal Criminal ProcedureDue ProcessInterstate CommerceFelony Conviction
References
28
Case No. ADJ6884625
Regular
Jun 19, 2012

JASON PETERSON, KIRSTIE MCCRAINE-PETERSON vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the death of Jason Peterson, a correctional officer, from a pulmonary embolism after injuring his calf in a kickboxing class. The applicant, his widow, claimed the injury and death were work-related, arguing the kickboxing class was a reasonable expectancy of employment due to a general fitness requirement and incentive program. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the claim barred by Labor Code Section 3600(a)(9) because the decedent's belief that kickboxing was required was not objectively reasonable, as mere general assertions of fitness expectations are insufficient. Commissioner Brass dissented, believing the decedent's participation was both subjectively and objectively reasonable given its likely benefit to his job performance as a correctional officer.

Labor Code Section 3600(a)(9)Pulmonary EmbolismCorrectional OfficerKickboxingOff-duty Recreational ActivityReasonable Expectancy of EmploymentSubjective BeliefObjective ReasonablenessEzzy testCity of Stockton v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Jenneiahn)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prestige Builder & Management LLC v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America

Prestige Builder & Management LLC, a New York subcontractor, initiated a diversity action against Triton Structural Concrete Incorporated, its surety Safeco Insurance Co. of America, and individual Triton employees Mary Anne Wilson, Elaina Gallegos, and Debra Peterson. Prestige sought $134,927.66 for payment bond claims and alleged fraud regarding work performed on a New York City Parks Department amphitheater project. The fraud claims asserted that Triton employees falsely certified forms to the Parks Department, indicating no outstanding payments to subcontractors, while Prestige was still owed funds. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the fraud claims, citing lack of standing and failure to meet Rule 9(b) particularity requirements. The Court denied the motion, upholding the New York third-party reliance doctrine and finding Prestige's fraud allegations sufficiently particular.

Fraud claimsMotion to dismissSubcontractor paymentPayment bondThird-party relianceNew York lawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureContract disputeGeneral contractorSurety
References
31
Case No. FRE 0218098 FRE 0200339
Regular
Aug 14, 2008

JOSE ACOSTA, ESMERALDA ABRIOL vs. PETERSON FAMILY and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S FACILITY

In **Acosta v. Peterson Family**, the Appeals Board dismissed petitions for reconsideration and removal filed by both the defendants and the lien claimant. This action concerns a consolidated lien proceeding with over 800 dates of service valued at over $7 million, stemming from an order compelling the lien claimant to produce specific medical documentation. In **Jacobson v. Sonoma Developmental Department**, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings at the trial level, indicating the prior decision was not final.

WCABLien ConsolidationItemized BillsOperative NotesOwnership InterestFictitious Name PermitsReconsiderationRemovalPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removal
References
0
Case No. LAO 862841
Regular
Feb 28, 2008

BAHATI H. SALAS vs. LIVHOME, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal and quashed the applicant's notice for a second deposition of Dr. Peterson. The Board found no good cause for a second deposition, as the applicant's representative was present at the first and failed to question Dr. Peterson on relevant matters despite having all necessary documentation. Allowing repeated depositions without changed circumstances would be neither expeditious nor inexpensive, contradicting the Board's mandate.

RemovalMotion to QuashDepositionAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Due ProcessGood CauseCredibilitySubsequent DepositionLabor Code 4062.3Substantial Justice
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amedore v. Peterson

Judge Graffeo dissents from a decision concerning the interpretation of New York Election Law § 11-302, which governs the use of special ballots by poll workers. The dissent argues that the statute's provisions, stating that special ballots should be provided "not earlier than two weeks before the election" and cast "not later than the close of the polls on election day," imply a requirement that these ballots also be cast no earlier than two weeks prior to the election. The Appellate Division, however, concluded there was no violation when ballots were both distributed and cast more than two weeks before the election, allowing them to be canvassed. Graffeo contends that this interpretation warrants further appellate review due to conflicting lower court conclusions and the importance of strict compliance with election procedures, referencing previous rulings on absentee balloting.

Statutory InterpretationElection LawSpecial BallotsPoll WorkersVoting ProceduresBallot CanvassingAppellate ReviewStrict ComplianceDissenting OpinionNew York Election Law
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 29 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