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
Mar 30, 1981

Claim of Kosak v. Dana Group, Inc.

This case involves appeals from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board. The central issue was whether the claimant was an employee of Dana Group, Inc. The Board found an employer-employee relationship, citing payroll stubs and checks from Dana Group, Inc. to the claimant. Despite being advised, the employer did not appear at a subsequent hearing. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's decision regarding the employer-employee relationship was deemed proper. The appellate court affirmed these decisions, concluding they were supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipPayroll EvidenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative ProceedingsConcurring OpinionBoard DecisionAppealClaimant
References
0
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02750
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2022

Matter of Jaque A. (Dana M.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court finding that respondent mother, Dana M., neglected her child, Jaque A. The neglect finding was based on the mother's failure to seek treatment for a serious mental illness, schizophrenia, which placed the child at imminent risk of harm. Evidence included a prior neglect proceeding, an involuntary commitment for a psychotic disorder in Montana, and a lack of compliance with prescribed mental health treatment after returning to New York. The mother also denied her mental illness and previous ACS involvement, further supporting the court's decision. This ruling emphasizes the parent's responsibility to manage mental health conditions to ensure a child's safety and well-being.

Child NeglectMental IllnessParental RightsSchizophreniaInvoluntary CommitmentRisk of HarmTreatment Non-ComplianceFamily LawAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Dana Corp.

Dana Corporation, as the debtor, sought court approval for its Executive Compensation Motion, which included the assumption of employment agreements and the establishment of a long-term incentive plan (LTIP) for its CEO and Senior Executives. This was Dana’s second attempt after an earlier, less incentivizing proposal was denied. The motion faced opposition from the U.S. Trustee, unions, and a non-union retiree committee, who raised concerns under Bankruptcy Code section 503(c) regarding retention and severance payments to insiders. The Court, treating the motion de novo, determined that the revised plan was a legitimate incentive program, not primarily retentive, and generally permissible under the Debtors’ sound business judgment. However, the Court expressed concern over the potential cumulative generosity of both the annual and long-term incentive plans for 2007-2008 without a clear ceiling. Consequently, the Executive Compensation Motion was granted, but conditioned on the submission of an order establishing an appropriate annual compensation cap for the CEO and Senior Executives.

Bankruptcy LawExecutive CompensationIncentive PlansEmployment AgreementsChapter 11 ReorganizationCreditors' RightsBusiness Judgment RuleKey Employee Retention Programs (KERPs)Severance PayNon-compete Clauses
References
28
Case No. ADJ9664433
Regular
Jan 27, 2020

DANA GRACE vs. PANINO SANTA YNEZ, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim for permanent total disability due to an industrial injury sustained by Dana Grace as a server. Both applicant and defendant sought reconsideration of the initial finding regarding applicant's average weekly earnings. The Board granted both petitions, amending the decision to establish applicant's average weekly wage at $553.50, based on a 40-hour workweek at $11.50 per hour plus a meal allowance. This revised wage establishes a permanent total disability indemnity rate of $369.00 per week, before cost of living adjustments.

Average Weekly EarningsEarning CapacityPermanent Total DisabilityReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardIndustrial InjuryWCJPetitions for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 4659(c)Evidence Code Section 1401(a)
References
2
Case No. 532293
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2022

Matter of Scuderi-Hunter v. County of Del.

Petitioner Dana Scuderi-Hunter, a Commissioner of Social Services, was terminated by the Delaware County Board of Supervisors based on numerous disciplinary charges. She initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment of the determination, reinstatement, and back pay. The Appellate Division annulled certain misconduct findings related to a Family Court juvenile delinquency proceeding and a time-barred child neglect charge, citing a lack of substantial evidence or improper application of the statute of limitations. However, the court sustained findings of misconduct concerning the creation of a hostile work environment, retaliatory actions against an employee, and failure to return County property. Ultimately, the court concluded that the penalty of termination was not disproportionate to the sustained charges, modifying the determination to annul specific charges while confirming the overall decision.

Employment TerminationDisciplinary ProceedingsCPLR Article 78Social Services CommissionerHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationMisconductInsubordinationCivil Service LawDelaware County
References
10
Case No. ADJ1282717 (LBO 0332013) ADJ1437663 (LBO 0333033) ADJ1830483 (LBO 0332918)
Regular
Mar 24, 2011

SUSAN RICHARDSON vs. PROSPECT HEALTH SOURCE MEDICAL GROUP, JAMES DANIEL, DANA EISENMAN, GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT INSURANCE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This Nunc Pro Tunc Order corrects a clerical error in a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The applicant's attorney, Vernon Goldwater, was erroneously misidentified in the Award section of the January 27, 2011 Decision. The Order amends the Award nunc pro tunc to correctly identify Mr. Goldwater as the attorney entitled to a 12% fee for temporary disability indemnity. All other aspects of the January 27, 2011 Decision remain unchanged.

nunc pro tuncclerical errorcorrecting awardtemporary disability indemnityself-procured medical treatmentmedical-legal costsfuture medical treatmentGranite State Insurance CompanyState Compensation Insurance FundCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association
References
1
Case No. ADJ1282717 (LBO 0332013), ADJ1437663 (LBO 0333033), ADJ1830483 (LBO 0332918)
Regular
Nov 08, 2010

Susan Richardson vs. PROSPECT HEALTH SOURCE MEDICAL GROUP, JAMES DANIEL, DANA EISENMAN, M.D., GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT INSURANCE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant seeking workers' compensation for injuries allegedly arising from a series of events, including a workplace fall and subsequent cumulative trauma. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the trial judge's decisions regarding causation and apportionment of permanent disability were not adequately supported by the existing medical evidence. The Board found the current record insufficient to properly analyze these complex issues, necessitating further development of the medical record and a new decision. The cases are returned to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationApportionmentPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerCumulative TraumaPsychiatric DisabilityOrthopedic DisabilityVocational Evaluation ReportCausation
References
1
Case No. ADJ1282717 (LBO 0332013), ADJ1437663 (LBO 0333033), ADJ1830483 (LBO 0332918)
Regular
Jan 27, 2011

SUSAN RICHARDSON vs. PROSPECT HEALTH SOURCE MEDICAL GROUP, JAMES DANIEL, DANA EISENMAN, M.D., GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, FREMONT INSURANCE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend its prior decision, reinstating uncontested findings of industrial injury and temporary disability benefits for Susan Richardson. This action corrects a previous order that had effectively denied these benefits by rescinding the WCJ's decisions entirely, despite the issues of permanent disability and apportionment remaining unresolved. The Board clarified that defendants can resolve contribution and reimbursement issues after further medical record development and a new WCJ decision. The cases are returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryShoulder InjuryUpper Extremity InjuryPsyche InjuryLow Back InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
0
Case No. ADJ9277895
Regular
Jun 03, 2016

ERIC DANA vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied both the applicant's and defendant's petitions for reconsideration of a prior award. The Board affirmed the finding of a $25\%$ permanent disability for the applicant's right thumb injury, agreeing with the administrative law judge's reliance on a qualified medical evaluator's opinion which deviated from the standard AMA Guides schedule to more accurately reflect the impairment. The Board also upheld the $15\%$ increase in permanent disability benefits, finding the defendant failed to properly document any work offer as required by statute. Finally, the Board noted the defendant failed to raise the issue of a temporary disability overpayment credit during the initial trial.

Permanent DisabilityAMA GuidesWhole Person ImpairmentLabor Code section 4658(d)(2)Temporary Disability IndemnityPetition for ReconsiderationFindings & AwardStipulationRebuttalAlmaraz-Guzman II
References
5
Case No. ADJ7290133
Regular
Mar 17, 2014

DANA MOORE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final order. The Appeals Board also granted removal on its own motion to address the lien claimant's failure to appear at a lien conference and contradictory statements. Due to the lien claimant's apparent bad faith and misrepresentations, the Board intends to impose a sanction of up to $500 against both the lien claimant and its representative. The lien claimant and representative have 15 days to object with good cause.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationRemoval on Board MotionNotice of Intention to Impose SanctionsLabor Code § 5813Cal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10562Lien Conference
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 38 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