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

Elkins v. Robbins & Cowan, Inc.

The plaintiff, Stephen Elkins, an iron welder, was injured on a construction site controlled by general contractor Robbins & Cowan, Inc., and his employer, subcontractor Vulcan Iron Works, Inc. Elkins fell from a steel beam while tightening bolts, asserting a lack of adequate safety devices, a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). He sought partial summary judgment on liability, which the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied. On appeal, the order was reversed, and Elkins' motion was granted. The appellate court found that Robbins & Cowan, Inc. violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to provide proper safety devices, which was the proximate cause of Elkins' injuries, despite arguments of concurrent causes.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawScaffolding LawAbsolute LiabilityGeneral ContractorSubcontractorProximate CauseSummary Judgment MotionAppellate Reversal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 1996

Isnardi v. Genovese Drug Stores, Inc.

Thomas Isnardi was injured on September 13, 1993, after falling from a scaffold while performing demolition work on premises owned by Genovese Drug Stores, Inc. He sued Genovese and the general contractor, Robbins & Cowan, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate scaffolding. Robbins & Cowan, Inc. then filed a third-party action against Joe Demasco, Isnardi's employer. The Supreme Court granted Isnardi summary judgment on liability. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denying the plaintiff's motion, as there was a factual dispute regarding whether Isnardi was a recalcitrant worker who refused to use a provided safe "pipe" scaffold, opting instead for an allegedly less stable "Baker" scaffold.

Personal InjuryScaffold FallDemolition WorkRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentLabor LawConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationAppellate Reversal
References
4
Case No. ADJ8517780
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

DEANNA ROBBINS vs. SUSANVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant school district's petition for reconsideration. The district challenged the calculation of the applicant's average weekly earnings, arguing her probationary status should reduce the figure. However, the Board affirmed the administrative law judge's finding, determining that the applicant's earnings capacity was properly calculated based on her actual earnings from multiple employers prior to the injury. The Board emphasized that earning capacity is a dynamic assessment, not limited to the applicant's immediate employment status.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSusanville Elementary School DistrictDeanna RobbinsPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardcumulative injuryupper extremitiesaverage weekly earningsearning capacityLabor Code section 4453(c)(4)
References
7
Case No. ADJ2288420
Regular
Oct 14, 2013

DEANNA BEDOLLA DURON vs. THRIFTY CORPORATION, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal filed by the applicant, Deanna Bedolla Duron. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, deeming it improperly taken from a non-final interlocutory order. The Board also denied removal, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Consequently, the Board ordered the dismissal of the reconsideration petition and the denial of removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalRemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory OrderEvidentiary DecisionsPre-trial Orders
References
10
Case No. ADJ7811477, ADJ7811473, ADJ7808129, ADJ6621190
Regular
Apr 18, 2016

DEANNA CARROLL vs. WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Deanna Carroll's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the reasoning of the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ), who found that the applicant's conduct met the criteria for being declared a vexatious litigant. This decision followed a history of the applicant filing numerous complaints, accusations of fraud and bias against judicial officers, and unmeritorious petitions. The WCJ found no evidence to support the applicant's allegations in her latest petition, and therefore recommended denial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationVexatious LitigantIn Propria PersonaLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10561Frivolous PetitionUnmeritorious FilingsBad Faith AllegationsPatently Insulting
References
4
Case No. ADJ6621190 (MF)
Regular
Jan 18, 2019

DEANNA CARROLL vs. WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Deanna Carroll was previously declared a vexatious litigant in 2016, requiring pre-approval to file any requests with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). In this decision, the WCAB reviewed a Petition for Removal for Cause filed by Carroll in propria persona on December 4, 2018. Finding no significant change in circumstances or newly discovered evidence since the prior determination, the WCAB declined to accept the petition for filing. Therefore, Carroll's petition was rejected as per the vexatious litigant pre-filing order.

Vexatious litigantpre-filing orderAppeals Board Rule 10782Petition for Removal for Causein pro pernew evidencechange in lawpresiding judgelicensed attorneydeclaration of readiness
References
0
Case No. ADJ3550667
Regular
Jun 23, 2009

Deanna Rasmussen vs. Vijay Garg, M.D., INC., Preferred Employers Insurance Company

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant, Deanna Rasmussen, claimed an industrial injury while working as a nuclear cardiology technologist. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) initially found her to be an employee. However, upon reconsideration, the WCAB reversed this decision, concluding Rasmussen was an independent contractor on the date of injury. Consequently, she is not entitled to workers' compensation benefits from Dr. Garg and his insurer. The WCAB has now denied Rasmussen's petition for further reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent ContractorEmployeeIndustrial InjuryNuclear Cardiology TechnologistReconsideration DeniedOpinion and OrderCompensable InjuryPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsideration
References
2
Case No. ADJ736188 (GOL 0099658)
Regular
Sep 22, 2017

Deanna Power vs. St. John's Regional Medical Center, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns Deanna Power's claim for continued medical treatment, specifically prescription medications Xyrem and Lunesta, for a previous industrial injury. The employer denied authorization for these medications through Utilization Review (UR), and the applicant's subsequent Independent Medical Review (IMR) application was deemed untimely. The trial judge initially ordered continued treatment and directed the Administrative Director to process the IMR appeal, finding it timely. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to order treatment when a timely UR decision was issued and the applicant's sole recourse was the IMR process. The matter was returned to the trial level for a determination solely on the timeliness of the IMR appeal, not the medical necessity of the medications.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardXyremLunestaIndependent Medical ReviewIMRUtilization ReviewURprescription medications
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Naughright v. Weiss

Plaintiff Jamie A. Naughright sued Donna Karan Weiss, Urban Zen, LLC, and Stephen M. Robbins for negligent misrepresentation, negligence, fraud, medical malpractice, battery, and failure to obtain consent. Naughright alleged she suffered severe injuries from "healing services" provided by Robbins, an unlicensed practitioner, whom the Karan Defendants had promoted as a qualified physician. The court granted the motion to dismiss the negligent misrepresentation claim against the Karan Defendants and dismissed part of the fraud claim against Robbins due to insufficient pleading of time and place. However, the claims for negligence, medical malpractice, battery, and failure to obtain consent against Robbins were allowed to proceed.

Motion to DismissNegligent MisrepresentationNegligenceFraudMedical MalpracticeBatteryLack of Informed ConsentFederal Rules of Civil ProcedurePersonal InjuryUnlicensed Practitioner
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. Eisen

The New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) sued the Eisen law firm and its associates, along with plaintiffs and witnesses from two personal injury cases (Robbins and Nieves), alleging fraud in procuring a settlement and a jury verdict. NYCTA sought to recover monies paid, citing a Federal criminal conviction of the Eisen firm members for racketeering, including engaging in a pattern of fraudulent activities like fabricating evidence, bribing witnesses, and presenting false testimony. The court found NYCTA's claims timely and held that the defendants were collaterally estopped from denying elements of fraud due to the Federal convictions. The court granted NYCTA summary judgment on its fraud claims for both Robbins and Nieves, ordering rescission of the Robbins settlement and vacating the Nieves judgment, and also granted partial summary judgment on Judiciary Law § 487 claims against the attorney defendants. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine damages and unjust enrichment against individual defendants.

FraudPerjuryRacketeeringCivil ConspiracyJudiciary Law § 487Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentRescissionUnjust EnrichmentPersonal Injury
References
30
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