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. ADJ7106767
Regular
Dec 16, 2013

JORGE IBARRA vs. BEVERLY WILSHIRE HOTEL, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Applicant Ibarra's Petition for Removal regarding the order to take the case off calendar. The Board found Applicant failed to show significant prejudice from delaying trial to clarify if the primary treating physician possessed specific treadmill test results. Furthermore, the Board noted Applicant filed declarations of readiness to proceed while discovery, specifically a vocational expert report, remained incomplete, indicating the case was not trial-ready. The matter was returned to the WCJ to consider sanctions against Applicant's counsel for prematurely filing declarations of readiness.

Petition for RemovalOff CalendarMandatory Settlement ConferenceIndustrial InjuryCumulative PeriodPrimary Treating PhysicianVocational Expert ReportUncompleted DiscoveryQualified Medical EvaluatorSanctions Proceedings
References
2
Case No. ADJ7166891
Regular
Oct 31, 2013

NORMA MENDEZ MUNOZ vs. APPLIED POLYTECH SYSTEMS, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a WCJ's order dismissing a lien claim. The dismissal was based on the lien claimant's failure to pay a lien activation fee for a conference that was improperly added to the calendar. The WCAB found the conference was not properly set under Court Administrator Rule 10250 because no Declaration of Readiness to Proceed had been filed for that specific case, and the defendant's request for consolidation lacked necessary declarations. Therefore, the WCAB vacated the dismissal and ordered the matter off calendar, requiring a proper Declaration of Readiness to be filed to set the lien conference.

Lien activation feeReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedCourt Administrator Rule 10250EDEXEAMSWCJLien conferenceEx parte request
References
2
Case No. ADJ9155937
Regular
Dec 16, 2016

SYLVIA MC GILVARY vs. SAN DIEGUITO PRINTERS, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal. The defendant argued that the case should have proceeded to trial, not a priority conference, because the applicant did not object to the declaration of readiness. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order, returning the matter for a mandatory settlement conference. This will allow the applicant's attorney to present evidence regarding the objection to the declaration of readiness.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMinute OrderMandatory Settlement ConferencePriority ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedWCJApplicantDefendantEAMS ADJ file
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Davis v. Labor Ready

Decedent, employed by Labor Ready, an employment agency, died in an automobile accident while being driven home from a temporary work assignment by a fellow Labor Ready employee, McKinley Barnes. Barnes was not working that day but volunteered to drive decedent and other employees, receiving a small payment from each employee for transportation. Claimant filed for workers’ compensation death benefits on behalf of decedent’s minor children, which were initially granted by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge but subsequently reversed and disallowed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The central issue was whether the accident occurred within the scope of employment, specifically if Labor Ready had assumed responsibility for transporting its employees. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that Labor Ready did not have exclusive control of the conveyance, and therefore, the injuries were not sustained in the course of employment. The court also found no abuse of discretion by the Board in refusing claimant's rebuttal due to procedural deficiencies.

Workers' CompensationDeath Benefits ClaimScope of EmploymentCommuting AccidentEmployer Provided TransportationCarpooling ArrangementTemporary AgencyWorkers' Compensation Board ReversalAppellate AffirmationCausal Connection
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Watch Hill Homeowners Ass'n v. Town Board

The Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh proposed constructing a 1,000,000-gallon water tank and, acting as lead agency under SEQRA, designated it a "Type I" action. Despite identifying "potential large impacts" on the environment, the Board issued a negative declaration of environmental significance. Petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the issuance of the negative declaration as arbitrary and capricious. The court found that the Town Board failed to provide a "reasoned elaboration" for its determination, especially regarding the project's aesthetic impacts, which it deemed insufficient to justify a negative declaration. Consequently, the court annulled the Town Board's determination, granted the petition, and declared Resolution No. 93-46 and all subsequent construction authorizations invalid.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationCPLR Article 78Water Storage TankTown BoardGreenburghAesthetic ImpactEnvironmental AssessmentType I Action
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angello v. Labor Ready, Inc.

Labor Ready, Inc. and its subsidiary Labor Ready Northeast, Inc., temporary employment firms in western New York, paid their 18,000 workers daily. Employees could choose payment by check or a cash voucher, redeemable at a Labor Ready cash dispensing machine (CDM) for a fee. The State Department of Labor investigated complaints in 1999 regarding unlawful wage deductions, including these CDM fees. The Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA) initially found no violation of Labor Law § 193 (1), deeming the CDM charge a voluntary, separate transaction. However, the Department of Labor commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Appellate Division reversed, concluding the fee deduction and wage payment were inseparably connected and violated Labor Law § 193. This Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, emphasizing that the fee deduction, even if optional, constituted an unlawful deduction from wages under Labor Law § 193 (1) (b) and (2), and contravened the legislative intent to protect employees from coercive economic arrangements.

Wage deductionsLabor LawTemporary employmentCash vouchersEmployer feesStatutory interpretationVoluntary deductionsLegislative intentEmployee protectionCPLR Article 78
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Town of Dickinson v. County of Broome

This case involves cross-appeals from a Supreme Court judgment in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Petitioners challenged the Broome County Legislature's negative declaration of environmental impact for a proposed public safety facility, which included a 400-bed jail and other county offices in the Town of Dickinson, Broome County. The proposed complex was classified as a type I action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), presumptively requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court initially annulled the negative declaration but denied injunctive relief. This appellate court affirmed the annulment of the negative declaration and further directed respondents to investigate and discuss the storage of petroleum/chemical products and sewage treatment capacity within the required EIS, modifying the Supreme Court's judgment. The court also upheld the denial of petitioners' request for injunctive relief, noting that SEQRA mandates environmental review completion before any construction.

Environmental LawSEQRANegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementPublic Safety FacilityBroome CountyCPLR Article 78Cross AppealsAnnulmentInjunctive Relief
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2000

Spitzer v. Farrell

The New York City Department of Sanitation (DOS) implemented an interim plan to transport Manhattan's solid waste to New Jersey, necessitating an environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). DOS issued a negative declaration, asserting no significant environmental impact. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that DOS failed to adequately consider the impact of PM2.5 emissions, relying instead on outdated PM10 standards. The Supreme Court initially denied the petition. This court reversed that decision, finding that DOS's failure to take a "hard look" at potential PM2.5 impacts was an error of law under SEQRA. Consequently, the negative declaration was annulled, and DOS was directed to conduct a new environmental assessment addressing all relevant concerns, including PM2.5 emissions.

Environmental LawSEQRANegative DeclarationAir QualityPM2.5 EmissionsPM10 StandardsDiesel EmissionsWaste ManagementJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 1984

Gotbaum v. Lewis

This case concerns a dispute over the regulatory authority of the New York State Superintendent of Insurance regarding employee welfare funds administered unilaterally by municipal unions but financed by the City of New York. Plaintiffs, trustees of these funds, sought a declaration that they were not bound by Insurance Law article III-A, citing decades of legislative intent and administrative practice that excluded unilaterally administered funds from its scope. Despite a history of failed legislative attempts to expand jurisdiction, the Superintendent of Insurance moved to compel registration. The court ultimately modified a prior order, denying the plaintiffs' motion and granting the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, thereby declaring that the Insurance Department possesses regulatory jurisdiction over these funds under Insurance Law article III-A, § 37-a.

Employee welfare fundsRegulatory jurisdictionInsurance Law Article III-AUnilaterally administered fundsCollective bargainingMunicipal unionsLegislative intentStatutory interpretationAdministrative overreachSummary judgment
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 853 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