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

Bach v. Millard Fillmore Health Systems, Inc.

This case addresses the applicability of the Omnibus Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 1996 to a third-party action. The plaintiff was injured in July 1996, prior to the Act’s effective date of September 10, 1996. However, the subsequent third-party lawsuit against the employer, Amherst Acoustical, Inc., was initiated in November 1997, after the Act became law. The court examined whether the accident date or the lawsuit commencement date should dictate the application of the new legislation. Relying on the Court of Appeals' clear directive in Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., the court ruled that irrespective of the accident date, a prospective application of the law to actions filed after the effective date requires dismissal of the third-party claim.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ClaimStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentProspective ApplicationMajewski RuleDismissalNew York LawOmnibus Workers' Compensation Reform ActTort Law
References
1
Case No. 535366
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Glen Delaney

Claimant Glen Delaney filed a workers' compensation claim for bilateral arm and hand injuries diagnosed as neuropathy, osteoarthritis, bilateral carpal tunnel, and right cubital tunnel syndrome, attributed to a work-related occupational disease as a construction laborer. The Workers' Compensation Board established December 19, 2018, as the date of disablement, holding John P. Picone, Inc., as the employer at that time, and Starr Indemnity & Liability Company as the liable carrier. Picone and Starr Indemnity appealed, challenging the disablement date and arguing Jett Industries Inc. should be the liable employer under Workers' Compensation Law § 44. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the chosen disablement date and clarifying that Workers' Compensation Law § 44 dictates liability for the employer at or preceding the disablement date. The Court also upheld the WCLJ's preclusion of untimely cross-examination of physicians by the appellants.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeCubital Tunnel SyndromeDate of DisablementLast Employer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier LiabilityIME Report PreclusionRepetitive Stress Injury
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2008

Aminzadeh v. Hyosung USA

The claimant, a machine operator, sustained a left hand injury in 2005. During treatment for this injury, she was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in her left wrist. A separate claim for carpal tunnel syndrome was established as an unrelated occupational disease, with a disablement date of June 2007 by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The employer’s workers’ compensation carrier appealed the Board’s ruling on the date of disablement. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the selection of June 2007 as the date of disablement was supported by substantial evidence, as the condition was objectively diagnosed then.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeDate of DisablementSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLeft Hand InjuryMachine OperatorMedical DiagnosisBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Water Tunnel Contractors

A motion was filed seeking to compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept two notices of appeal, dated July 10, 1978, and September 22, 1978. The court partially granted the motion, directing the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept the notice of appeal dated July 10, 1978. However, the motion was denied with respect to the notice of appeal dated September 22, 1978. The decision was rendered without costs to either party. Justices Mahoney, Greenblott, Main, Mikoll, and Herlihy concurred with the ruling.

Motion PracticeAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionCourt OrderPartial GrantNotice of AppealLegal CostsConcurring Opinion
References
2
Case No. 15-36090
Regular Panel Decision

In re Covelli

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court granted the Debtors' motion to reopen their Chapter 7 bankruptcy case and imposed sanctions on creditor William Clement for violating the discharge injunction. Clement had pursued a deficiency judgment in state court on a discharged mortgage debt, despite previous court orders. The Court found Clement in contempt and ordered him to withdraw the state court proceeding, imposing a daily penalty for non-compliance. The Court denied Clement's separate motion to declare an earlier Chapter 13 petition date as the effective date for the Chapter 7 discharge, reaffirming the June 15, 2015 Chapter 7 petition date.

BankruptcyDischarge InjunctionSanctionsMotion to ReopenPetition DateDeficiency JudgmentContemptChapter 7Chapter 13Automatic Stay
References
82
Case No. SRO 125481, SRO 140547
Regular
Apr 04, 2008

SANDRA FORREST (deceased), BRYAN MAHAFFY (widower) vs. BOYES SPRINGS FOOD CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing a previous decision and finding that the applicant's claim for death benefits was barred by the statute of limitations. The Board determined that the claim was filed more than 240 weeks after the established date of injury, as dictated by Labor Code Section 5406. This decision was based on precedent stating that once an injury date is established *inter vivos*, a dependent's subsequent knowledge of industrial causation does not create a new date of injury.

Statute of limitationsDeath benefitsPetition for reconsiderationFindings of Fact and DecisionIndustrial injuryBilateral upper extremitiesCarpel tunnel syndromeShoulder dislocationTemporary disabilityPermanent and stationary
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1998

Claim of Baldo v. Daily News

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision setting the date of disablement for claimant Joseph Baldo, a former newspaper pressman who suffered from work-related lung cancer, as July 29, 1992. Baldo's widow filed for death benefits after his passing in 1994, leading to a dispute between workers' compensation carriers over liability. The appealing carrier contended that the disablement date should be earlier, citing diagnoses in 1990 or 1991. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's discretion in selecting a disablement date and finding no medical evidence to establish disability prior to July 29, 1992, even though earlier diagnoses existed.

Workers' Compensation LawLung CancerDate of DisablementAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCarrier ResponsibilityOccupational DiseaseMedical EvidenceClaimant DisabilityBoard Discretion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1978

Claim of Falcone v. Western Electric Co.

The case involves an appeal of a Workers' Compensation Board decision that set the claimant's date of disablement as July 30, 1973. The claimant, an employee of Western Electric Company, Inc., developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease due to polyurethane exposure, initially experiencing symptoms in 1966. While a medical report from Dr. Ehret in 1966 identified bronchial asthma, the condition was not considered disabling until July 30, 1973, when the claimant first lost work time due to respiratory issues. The Board's decision, which also discharged the Special Fund from liability under section 25-a of the Workers’ Compensation Law, was affirmed by the appellate court, finding substantial evidence to support the determination of the disablement date.

Occupational DiseaseChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseBronchial AsthmaPolyurethane ExposureToluene Diisocyanate (TD1)Date of DisablementWorkers' Compensation LawSpecial FundsSubstantial EvidenceMedical Testimony
References
3
Case No. ADJ9097128
Regular
Jun 18, 2015

MATTHEW WALKER vs. TAMPA BAY LIGHTNING, CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS, ST. LOUIS BLUES, FEDERAL INSURANCE (CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES)

This case concerns a professional hockey player's workers' compensation claim filed after September 15, 2013. The key issue was whether the amended Labor Code section 3600.5, effective on that date, barred the claim. The Appeals Board reversed the initial finding, holding that the statute's plain language dictates its application to claims filed on or after September 15, 2013. As the applicant's claim was filed after this date, the amendments apply. Due to a stipulation that the amended law bars the claim, the applicant was ordered to take nothing.

Labor Code 3600.5Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationProfessional AthleteCumulative Industrial InjuryFiling DateLabor Code 5401(c)Code of Civil Procedure 12aCalifornia Code of Regulations title 8 section 10508Operative Date
References
0
Case No. ADJ3327542, ADJ7143228
Regular
Apr 12, 2018

ABIGAIL FURGOL vs. UCLA MEDICAL CENTER, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves an injured worker, Abigail Furgol, and her employer, UCLA Medical Center. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing a specific 104-week limit on temporary disability payments from *Brower v. David Jones Construction* should apply. However, the Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding that the cumulative injury date predates the statutory limit, making *Brower* inapplicable. The Board affirmed that Labor Code section 4650(b), as amended by SB 863, dictates payment calculations from the permanent and stationary date, which was stipulated in this case.

Labor Code § 4656(c)Brower v. David Jones Constructiontemporary disability indemnity104-week limitLabor Code § 4650(b)Senate Bill 863permanent disability indemnitypermanent and stationary dateVillagio Inn & Spa v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Soto)cumulative injury
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,104 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