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

Gesauldi v. Dan Yant Inc.

Plaintiffs, trustees of various Local 282 trust funds, initiated an action against Dan Yant Inc. for failing to make required contributions to the funds, violating ERISA and LMRA. Defendant defaulted after being served. Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann recommended granting default judgment to plaintiffs, awarding $2,418.28 in unpaid contributions, $1,300.00 in audit fees, $3,313.64 in attorney's fees and costs, and prejudgment interest and liquidated damages. District Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto reviewed the Report and Recommendation, found no clear error, and adopted it as the court's opinion, ordering judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

Default JudgmentERISALMRAUnpaid ContributionsTrust FundsCollective Bargaining AgreementDelinquent ContributionsAudit FeesAttorney FeesPrejudgment Interest
References
26
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02199 [193 AD3d 1197]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2021

Matter of Weishar v. Dan Tait Inc.

Patrick Daniel Volpe Sr. sustained multiple injuries while working and was later found to be permanently totally disabled, receiving weekly wage loss benefits. He negotiated a Workers' Compensation Law § 32 settlement agreement, which, after an initial rejection, was revised and approved by the Workers' Compensation Board on June 27, 2018. The approval came with a 10-day period for withdrawal, set to expire on July 13, 2018. However, Volpe Sr. died on July 5, 2018, before this withdrawal period concluded. Subsequently, the Board rescinded its approval, deeming the agreement a nullity, a decision that was upheld by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and later affirmed by the Appellate Division, Third Department.

Settlement Agreement NullityWorkers' Compensation Board ApprovalSection 32 AgreementDeath Before Final Approval10-Day Waiting PeriodUnconscionable AgreementAppellate ReviewWage Loss BenefitsPermanent Total DisabilityEstate Claim
References
3
Case No. ADJ1428156 (BAK 0153409) ADJ2078684 (BAK 0154236)
Regular
Apr 24, 2017

DAN HOWARTH vs. YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC., SEDGWICK

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Dan Howarth. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the report from the Workers' Compensation Judge. Finding no grounds for reconsideration, the Board adopted the judge's report and denied the petition. Therefore, the applicant's request for reconsideration of the prior decision is rejected.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ reportdeny reconsiderationYellow TransportationSedgwickDan HowarthADJ1428156BAK0153409
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Buckley v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Dan Buckley, a former management employee, sued Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Executive Law § 296, alleging discrimination based on his disability as a rehabilitated alcohol/substance abuser and termination due to his inability to provide a urine sample for drug testing. The court had previously dismissed his complaint but allowed him to replead, finding he adequately alleged disability but not discrimination based on it. In his amended complaint, Buckley conceded his bladder condition, which prevented him from urinating on command, was not an ADA disability but argued Con Edison's drug testing procedures were unreasonable. The court granted Con Edison's motion to dismiss, concluding that failure to accommodate a non-disability does not constitute an ADA violation, and Buckley failed to allege that his actual disability (alcohol/substance abuse) was not reasonably accommodated.

Americans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationDrug TestingReasonable AccommodationAlcohol AbuseSubstance AbuseTermination of EmploymentMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12New York State Executive Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ameduri v. Village of Frankfort

The plaintiff, Sam Ameduri, a police officer with the Village of Frankfort, sued the Village, former Police Chief Steven Conley, and former police officer Dan Herrman, alleging violations of his First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. Ameduri claimed Conley assaulted him on February 22, 2010, after Ameduri refused to change testimony in a separate litigation involving Harold Griffin. He also alleged Herrman unlawfully obtained his cell phone records to discredit him, leading to Herrman's criminal conviction for forgery and official misconduct via an Alford plea. Ameduri further asserted a Monell claim against the Village for negligent hiring and supervision of Conley and Herrman. The court dismissed all of Ameduri's federal claims, finding no constitutional violations occurred and insufficient evidence to support the Monell claim, and denied his cross-motion for summary judgment. State law claims were dismissed without prejudice, and punitive damages against the Village were dismissed.

Police MisconductCivil Rights ViolationRetaliationMonell LiabilitySummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationOfficial MisconductForgeryCell Phone PrivacyMunicipal Liability
References
47
Case No. ADJ4517161 (OXN 0141672) ADJ3871851 (OXN 0141670)
Regular
Jun 13, 2011

CANDICE CHAVEZ vs. COUNTY OF VENTURA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board imposed a $2,500 sanction against Dan Escamilla and Legal Service Bureau for filing a frivolous petition for reconsideration. The petition contained materially false statements, including mischaracterizing evidence and making legally unsupported arguments regarding psychiatric injury compensability. Despite Escamilla's attempts to excuse these actions, the Board found them objectively unreasonable and a repeated disregard for practice rules, noting his history of sanctions.

SanctionFrivolous PetitionMaterially False StatementsLegal Service BureauDan EscamillaPORAC Lien ClaimDr. WarickLabor Code 3208.3(b)(1)Psychiatric InjuryPredominant Cause
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maher v. Whitehead

The third-party defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which denied their motion to dismiss the third-party complaint in an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the Supreme Court properly found the Omnibus Worker’s Compensation Reform Act of 1996 (L 1996, ch 635, § 2) inapplicable under the presented circumstances. Justices O’Brien, Thompson, Sullivan, and Friedmann concurred in the decision.

personal injurythird-party practiceappellate reviewmotion to dismissWorker's Compensation Reform Actstatutory interpretationretroactivity of lawcivil procedure
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Satalino v. Dan's Supreme Supermarket

This decision affirms the Workers' Compensation Board's determination that the claimant failed to establish a recognizable link between his occupational disease and employment. The claimant, diagnosed with disc herniation, arthritis, spondylolisthesis, and stenosis, presented testimony from two neurological surgeons. Dr. Stephen Burstein could not definitively link the conditions to employment, noting potential causes like chronic degeneration or age. Dr. Artem Vaynman, while performing surgeries, opined that heavy lifting accelerated degeneration but also acknowledged an initial view of no employment relation and a lack of scientific evidence for repetitive lifting causing spinal injury. The court found no abuse of discretion in the Board's conclusion, emphasizing the requirement for a probable and rationally based causal relationship.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation LawCausal RelationshipMedical OpinionDisc HerniationArthritisSpondylolisthesisStenosisHeavy LiftingDegenerative Condition
References
5
Case No. ADJ3673133 (VNO 0543877)
Regular
Sep 13, 2013

DAN GOLDFIELD vs. CITY OF WEST COVINA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and modified a prior award to allow the defendant employer a $30,000 credit for temporary disability indemnity paid to a firefighter during the pendency of his retroactive disability retirement. While the Board agreed with the Administrative Law Judge that the employer was entitled to some credit for the overpayment, they exercised discretion under Labor Code Section 4909 to grant a partial credit, deeming a full credit inequitable. The Board found that the overpayment was made in good faith, but the applicant would suffer hardship if the full amount was credited, given the payments were due when made and the employer delayed in raising the credit issue. Therefore, a compromise credit of $30,000 was awarded instead of the initial $1,505.44 or the employer's requested $69,120.88.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of West Covinafirefightertemporary disability indemnityoverpaymentcreditpermanent disabilitydisability retirementLabor Code section 4909substantial medical evidence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 1991

Rifkin v. Dan's Supreme Supermarket, Inc.

Melvin Rifkin was injured while unloading a milk truck and received Workers’ Compensation benefits, with Queens Farms Dairy listed as his employer. He and other plaintiffs then sued the truck manufacturers, the supermarket, and several dairy companies, including Holland Farms Milk Company, Inc. Holland Farms Milk Company, Inc. moved for summary judgment, claiming it was Rifkin’s employer and thus the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment, finding that Holland Farms Milk Company, Inc. was indeed the employer and that the action was barred. The appellate court affirmed this decision, noting the Supreme Court's authority to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law and that the prior Workers' Compensation Board's decision did not preclude Holland Farms Milk Company, Inc. as it was not present.

Employer LiabilityIndemnificationThird-Party ActionExclusive RemedyCollateral EstoppelAppellate ProcedureMotion PracticeTrucking IndustryAccident InjuryStatutory Bar
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 37 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