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
Feb 15, 2001

United States v. Kloda

Defendants Samuel Kloda and Frieda Kloda pleaded guilty to federal tax evasion and conspiracy, admitting to falsifying nearly $900,000 in invoices to evade over $388,000 in federal, state, and local taxes. Although the Sentencing Guidelines indicated a 15-21 month imprisonment range, District Judge Hellerstein granted significant downward departures. Frieda Kloda, a single mother, was sentenced to six months imprisonment, with her custody deferred. Samuel Kloda received twelve months and one day due to his health, his wife's illness, and his critical role in their printing business, with his custody also deferred. Both defendants were ordered to pay full restitution to the taxing authorities and serve two years of supervised release.

Tax EvasionConspiracySentencing GuidelinesDownward DepartureFamily ResponsibilitiesMedical ConditionBusiness PreservationRestitutionSupervised ReleaseCriminal Punishment
References
19
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04674 [219 AD3d 1438]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2023

People v. Jony

This case is an appeal from an order designating the defendant, Hassan M. Jony, as a level two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The Supreme Court, Queens County, assessed 85 points, including 20 points under risk factor 7 for establishing a relationship with the victim for the primary purpose of victimization, and denied a downward departure. Jony challenged both the risk factor 7 assessment and the denial of a downward departure. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, finding clear and convincing evidence that Jony groomed the 13 to 14-year-old complainant through sexually explicit communications after meeting her through her uncle. The court concluded that the facts distinguished the case from People v Cook and upheld the denial of downward departure due to the significant age disparity.

Sex Offender Registration ActSORARisk Factor 7GroomingDownward DepartureAppellate DivisionChild Sexual AbuseRelationship with VictimClear and Convincing EvidencePresumptive Risk Level
References
30
Case No. KA 14-00721
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2015

SCZERBANIEWICZ, THOMAS, PEOPLE v

The case involves an appeal by Thomas Sczerbaniewicz from an Onondaga County Court order classifying him as a level three risk under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders initially recommended a level one risk but applied an override to level three due to a diagnosed psychological abnormality impacting impulse control. The County Court, while not applying the override, determined an upward departure to level three was warranted based on aggravating circumstances. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, unanimously affirmed the order, finding clear and convincing evidence that aggravating circumstances, such as the defendant's involvement in a child pornography ring, possession of over 1,500 child pornography images, and admitted fantasies in prison, justified the upward departure. The court also rejected the defendant's request for a downward departure, concluding that his cited mitigating factors were outweighed by the aggravating circumstances.

Sex Offender Registration ActSORARisk AssessmentUpward DepartureChild PornographyPsychological AbnormalityAggravating CircumstancesDownward DepartureAppellate ReviewCriminal Law
References
8
Case No. ADJ11286876; ADJ11286877
Regular
Dec 02, 2019

Joanna Fontenette vs. Los Angeles Unified School District, Sedgwick CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration and rescinded the trial judge's findings. The Board found the evidentiary record did not sufficiently establish whether the applicant sustained two separate injuries causing distinct periods of temporary disability, or if concurrent disabilities were properly evaluated. The matter was returned to the trial judge for further proceedings to develop the record, particularly regarding the medical opinions on causation and the distinction between injury dates. This decision is not a final determination of the merits.

Labor Code section 4850Petition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and Awardseparate and distinct periods of disabilitycontinuous traumacervical myelopathyspondylolisthesisagreed medical evaluatorcumulative traumaaggregate disability payments
References
10
Case No. ADJ6456347
Regular
Jan 30, 2012

MARK WILLIAMS vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case involves a police officer claiming industrial injury to his heart due to hypertensive heart disease, a condition he argued was distinct from previously compensated hypertension. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the administrative law judge's decision, finding the claim was not barred by res judicata. The WCAB clarified that while hypertension alone is not considered heart trouble, left ventricular hypertrophy, as diagnosed in the current claim, constitutes a distinct condition. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on other unresolved issues.

res judicatahypertensive heart diseasepolice officerLabor Code section 3212.5heart trouble presumptionleft ventricular hypertrophystipulated awardindustrial injurypermanent disabilityapportionment
References
6
Case No. ADJ8208920
Regular
Aug 16, 2012

TROY HUGHES vs. SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves two distinct industrial injuries to applicant's left shoulder and right wrist. The defendant appealed an award of temporary disability, arguing the injuries and their periods of disability overlapped. The Board affirmed the award of temporary disability for the left shoulder, commencing August 20, 2010, for up to 104 weeks. Credit was granted for 2.5 weeks of previously paid temporary disability for the right wrist against the left shoulder award. The Board adopted the Arbitrator's reasoning regarding distinct injuries and periods of disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryLeft ShoulderRight WristCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Code Section 3201.5Findings and AwardTemporary Disability IndemnityPetition for ReconsiderationArbitrator
References
0
Case No. ADJ8045455; ADJ8045600
Regular
Sep 14, 2012

ELSIE PENA CLARK ROSAS vs. SUTTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, SUTTER HEALTH

Here's a summary for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, which sought to compel applicant's examination by the same Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) for two distinct injuries. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that separate QME panels are permissible for distinct injuries to different body parts. This ruling establishes that a second injury does not constitute a "new medical issue" or a "follow-up/supplemental evaluation" requiring the original QME. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to a new QME panel for the second injury.

Petition for RemovalPQMEMedical Unitdistinct injuriesbody partsnew medical issuefollow-up evaluationsupplemental evaluationsecond panel of QMEsLabor Code section 4062.3(j)
References
0
Case No. ADJ9316586
Regular
Apr 25, 2014

JANET BLACKBURN, JANET LEE BLACKBURN vs. FRENCH HOSPITAL, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied removal in *Blackburn v. French Hospital*, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision to deny a change of venue. The WCAB deferred to the Division of Workers' Compensation's (DWC) distinction between "district offices" and "satellite offices" for venue purposes. This distinction is based on the operational capacity and staffing of these offices, with only district offices being considered for venue under Labor Code section 5501.5. The WCAB found the Santa Barbara office to be a satellite facility, not a district office, and therefore not a basis for changing venue.

Petition for RemovalVenueDistrict OfficeSatellite OfficeLabor Code Section 5501.5Administrative ConstructionContemporaneous ConstructionDeferenceStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Virga v. Medi-Tech International Corp.

The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied its motion for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury complaint based on Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity. The same order had also granted the plaintiffs' summary judgment, striking that affirmative defense. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order, finding no basis to disregard evidence that the injured plaintiff's employer and the property owner where the injury occurred were distinct legal entities. This distinction meant the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law did not apply. Therefore, the Supreme Court correctly struck the affirmative defense.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDistinct Legal EntitiesEmployer LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilityAffirmative DefenseNew York LawJudgment Affirmation
References
8
Case No. ADJ4348361 (STK 0170600)
Regular
Aug 02, 2012

Richard Horton vs. Crown Cork and Seal, American Protection Insurance Company, BROADSPIRE, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America

This case concerns defendant American Protection Insurance Company's (APIC) petition for contribution from Travelers Insurance Company for benefits paid to applicant Richard Horton. The Arbitrator denied APIC's petition, finding contribution was precluded because a prior stipulated award did not grant "new and distinct benefits." The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the Arbitrator's decision. The Board determined that a supplemental award granting new and further permanent disability, including a psyche injury claim, constituted new and distinct benefits subject to contribution, even if the original award was time-barred. The matter was returned for further proceedings to determine the extent of APIC's contribution rights.

ContributionReconsiderationPetition to ReopenNew and Further DisabilityInjury to the PsycheCompensable ConsequenceStipulated AwardArbitrator"New and Distinct Benefits"Labor Code Section 5500.5
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 436 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