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

Daniels v. Popolizio

Mr. Eugene Daniels' tenancy with the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) was terminated due to his son's arrest for drug possession on project grounds, leading to charges of non-desirability. Daniels defaulted on an administrative hearing, and his subsequent application to vacate the default was denied by the Hearing Officer. He then filed a CPLR article 78 petition, which the Supreme Court initially granted, vacating the default and remanding for a new hearing. This appellate court reversed that judgment, reinstating the default and termination of tenancy, finding the Hearing Officer's denial of Daniels' application to be rational and valid.

Tenancy TerminationDefault JudgmentAdministrative HearingCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewHousing AuthorityGood CauseExcusable DefaultAppellate ReviewNon-desirability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Daniels v. Zelco, Inc.

Edward Daniels, injured at work, received workers' compensation benefits. He and his wife, Darlene Daniels, sued his employer, St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc., and its parent company, Sun Company, Inc., for personal injuries and wrongful discharge. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was reversed; the court ruled that Daniels' acceptance of workers' compensation was his exclusive remedy, precluding further negligence claims against his employer. Additionally, the wrongful discharge claim was dismissed due to the at-will employment doctrine and the mandatory arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement. The derivative claim for loss of consortium by Darlene Daniels also failed.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyWrongful DischargeCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationRes JudicataParent Company LiabilityLoss of ConsortiumAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. CV-23-0766
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Mary Daniels

Claimant Mary Daniels appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying a causally-related neck injury. Daniels, a train conductor, initially claimed work-related injuries to her right shoulder, elbow, and hand. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established claims for the shoulder and elbow but not the neck. The Board affirmed, noting Daniels did not report neck pain in her initial claim or during a hearing, despite medical experts opining on a causally-related neck injury based on her later complaints. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its credibility determinations and finding substantial evidence supported the finding that the medical opinions lacked a proper factual basis regarding the neck injury.

CausationNeck InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryRight Elbow InjuryMedical EvidenceCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewTreating PhysicianOrthopedic Surgeon
References
5
Case No. CA 14-01267
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2015

CARR, DANIEL v. MCHUGH PAINTING CO., INC.

Plaintiffs Daniel and Susan Carr initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action after Daniel Carr, a carpenter employed by a subcontractor, sustained a back injury while installing a door from a scissor lift at a renovation site. The Supreme Court denied the general contractor, McHugh Painting Co., Inc.'s, motion for summary judgment and partially granted plaintiffs' cross-motion under Labor Law § 240 (1), allowing an amendment for a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order. It granted McHugh Painting Co., Inc.'s motion in part, dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against it, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion in its entirety. The court determined that Daniel Carr's injury was not an elevation-related hazard covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the proposed Industrial Code violation for Labor Law § 241 (6) lacked merit.

Labor LawConstruction SafetyPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewScissor Lift AccidentElevation-Related HazardCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial Code ViolationGeneral Contractor Liability
References
18
Case No. Misc. No. 254
En Banc
Feb 14, 2013

vs. Daniel Escamilla

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board suspends Daniel Escamilla's privilege to appear before it as a non-attorney representative for 90 days, finding good cause due to a repeated pattern of sanctionable conduct, including frivolous filings and misrepresentations of fact.

Labor Code section 4907nonattorney hearing representativeprivilege to appearWCABgood causefrivolous conductsanctionsLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561willful misrepresentation
References
54
Case No. Misc. No. 254
En Banc
Sep 21, 2011

vs. Daniel Escamilla

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a Notice of Hearing to consider suspending or removing Daniel Escamilla's privilege to appear as a representative, citing a history of sanctions for bad-faith actions, frivolous tactics, and causing unnecessary delays.

Labor Code Section 4907Privilege SuspensionRepresentative MisconductBad Faith ActionsFrivolous PleadingsMisrepresentations of FactAppeals Board RulesState Bar RulesWCJ SanctionsHearing Representative
References
28
Case No. Misc. No. 254
Significant
Sep 21, 2011

vs. Daniel Escamilla

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a notice for a hearing to consider the suspension or removal of Daniel Escamilla's privilege to appear as a representative, citing a history of repeated sanctions for frivolous petitions, bad-faith tactics, and misrepresentations of fact in multiple cases.

Labor Code section 4907Suspension of privilegeRemoval of privilegeRepresentative privilegeBad-faith actionsFrivolous tacticsUnnecessary delayWillful non-complianceMisrepresentation of factSanctions
References
26
Case No. Misc. No. 254
Significant
Sep 21, 2011

vs. Daniel Escamilla, Respondent

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a notice of hearing to consider suspending or removing Daniel Escamilla's privilege to appear as a representative due to a pattern of bad-faith actions, frivolous tactics, and misrepresentations of fact across multiple cases.

Labor Code section 4907Privilege suspensionRemoval of privilegeBad-faith actionsFrivolous tacticsUnnecessary delayWillful non-complianceMisrepresentation of factSanctionsHearing representative
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Daniels v. Berryhill

Rachelle R. Daniels sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability benefits, leading to cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court assessed the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) evaluation of medical evidence, opinions from treating physicians, Daniels' credibility, and vocational expert testimony. The ALJ determined Daniels was disabled from April 11, 2012, onwards, but not before. The court ultimately denied Daniels' motion, granted the Commissioner's motion, and ordered the dismissal of the case, affirming the Commissioner's final decision.

Social Security DisabilityJudicial ReviewALJ DecisionResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician OpinionClaimant CredibilityVocational ExpertDegenerative Disc DiseaseDegenerative Joint DiseaseMedian Entrapment Neuropathy
References
45
Case No. CV-23-0056
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Daniel Villagil

Claimant Daniel Villagil appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. He sustained lower back and left leg injuries from a pot of boiling water in October 2019, leading his treating physician to suggest a 20% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his left leg. The employer and carrier objected, arguing the scars weren't a basis for SLU. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the award due to the physician's report lacking explanation for the percentage and failing to document permanent physical/functional impairments. The Board affirmed this, finding no credible medical evidence of permanency or functional impairment. Claimant's subsequent application for reconsideration was also denied, prompting these appeals. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing the lack of credible medical proof and the conclusory nature of the treating physician's report, and found no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration.

Schedule Loss of UsePermanent ImpairmentMedical EvidenceTreating Physician ReportMaximum Medical ImprovementWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionReconsideration ApplicationFunctional ImpairmentScars
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 308 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