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. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Foulton v. Martec Industries

The claimant, a laborer for Martec Industries, sought workers' compensation benefits for a back injury allegedly sustained on June 7, 2006. Martec and its workers' compensation carrier controverted the claim, citing the claimant's history of prior back injuries in 1998 and 2000. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, concluding the June 7, 2006 incident constituted an accidental work-related aggravation of prior injuries, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence that the June 7, 2006 incident caused a new disability. Evidence showed the claimant had experienced chronic back pain since 1998, and physicians attributed his disability primarily to preexisting conditions. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryAggravationPreexisting ConditionMedical EvidenceDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewReversalRemittalEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. ADJ1970560 (OAK 0344240)
Regular
Mar 09, 2016

VAZGEN MANAS vs. THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, as administrator of the SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case concerns a credit sought by the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) for permanent disability advances paid to the applicant. The SIBTF argued that its liability for combined permanent disability should be calculated under Labor Code section 4751, which limits liability to the difference between the combined disability and the disability from the subsequent injury alone. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board agreed, reversing the prior finding that allowed a credit under section 4753 for the employer's payments. The Board clarified that section 4753 applies to payments for preexisting disability, not the subsequent industrial injury, and thus SIBTF's credit is limited by section 4751.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundLabor Code section 4751Labor Code section 4753permanent disability advancespreexisting permanent disabilitysubsequent industrial injurycombined permanent disabilitycreditWCJFindings of Fact
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2003

Coku v. Millar Elevator Industries, Inc.

The plaintiffs appealed a judgment dismissing their complaint against Millar Elevator Industries, Inc. The injured plaintiff, a maintenance worker, allegedly sustained injuries when he fell from a stepladder in a service elevator that suddenly dropped. The trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, despite the plaintiffs establishing the necessary elements (event ordinarily indicating negligence, defendant's exclusive control, and no plaintiff contribution). Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment, reinstated the complaint, and granted the plaintiffs a new trial against Millar Elevator Industries, Inc. Additionally, testimony regarding an experiment with the stepladder was deemed inadmissible for the new trial.

Personal InjuryNegligenceRes Ipsa LoquiturElevator AccidentStepladder FallJury InstructionsExclusive ControlNew TrialAdmissibility of EvidenceAppellate Procedure
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ginsberg v. Industrial Home for the Blind

The court considered the defendants' motion for summary judgment in a case involving plaintiff Seymour Ginsberg, who sustained a transportation-related injury during his employment with the Industrial Home for the Blind. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's sole legal recourse was under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Special Term correctly granted the defendants' motion, thereby dismissing the complaint. This decision was based on the finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, making the Workers’ Compensation Law the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyTransportation InjuryEmployment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scally v. Regional Industrial Partnership

Joseph E. Scally sustained personal injuries after falling from an air conditioning unit while working on a project involving the removal and replacement of these units from a building's roof. Plaintiffs brought an action alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against various parties involved in the project, including Regional Industrial Partnership, ABB Automation, Inc., Webster Crane Service, Inc., and Hendon Enterprises, Inc. The Supreme Court initially denied partial summary judgment for plaintiffs on Labor Law § 240 (1) and dismissed certain Labor Law claims against the defendants. On appeal, the order was modified to reinstate Labor Law § 240 (1) claims against Regional Industrial Partnership, ABB Automation, Inc., and Webster Crane Service, Inc., granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on this claim. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim and other parts of the order, while also addressing indemnification claims between the defendants and third-party defendant Ancoma, Inc., Scally's employer.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentElevation Related RiskProximate CauseContributory NegligenceIndemnificationThird-Party ActionCrane AccidentConstruction Accident
References
25
Case No. ADJ2651648 (MON 0342704)
Regular
Jul 18, 2017

TERESA SANCHEZ vs. HAWTHORNE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) sought reconsideration of an award granting applicant benefits for a 2006 industrial injury, arguing the prior disability rating was insufficient. The applicant had two industrial injuries: a 1997-2002 cumulative trauma and the 2006 specific injury, both causing fibromyalgia. The WCJ found the combined disability from both injuries exceeded the threshold for SIBTF benefits, based on her primary treating physician's rating. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, adopting the judge's report which found the applicant met the criteria for SIBTF benefits, and denied the SIBTF's petition.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFcumulative traumacompensable consequencefibromyalgiapermanent and stationaryAgreed Medical ExaminerAMA Guides1997 rating scheduleprimary treating physician
References
0
Case No. AD J6659170
Regular
Mar 25, 2016

JOSE VIRAMONTES vs. MARBORG INDUSTRIES, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE

This case involves a lien claimant, ManagedMed Inc., seeking reconsideration of a decision that disallowed its $\$13,032.00$ lien. The original judge found the applicant sustained industrial orthopedic injuries but not a psychiatric injury. ManagedMed argued the psychiatric injury was a compensable consequence and the defendant did not properly deny it. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report and reasoning that the lien claimant, standing in the applicant's shoes, failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that industrial events predominantly caused the alleged psychiatric injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial injuryPsychiatric injuryOrthopedic injuryCompensable consequenceLabor Code section 5402Burden of proofPreponderance of evidence
References
3
Case No. ADJ2388348 (FRE 0248294)
Regular
Apr 08, 2011

Rodney Cotta vs. Leprino Foods

Defendant Leprino Foods sought reconsideration of an award finding applicant Rodney Cotta sustained an industrial injury to his right knee on or about September 24, 2007. While Cotta had a prior knee injury in 2002, he received no treatment after 2003. Medical evidence, particularly Dr. Sorenson's report, supported the WCJ's finding of a new injury, deeming it an aggravation of a pre-existing condition, distinct from the prior injury. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the 2007 incident constituted a new industrial injury.

New industrial injuryRight kneeSeptember 242007Reconsideration deniedPrevious injuryStipulated award3% permanent disabilitySpecific injuryReceiving foreman
References
0
Case No. ADJ887872 (VEN 0115373) ADJ1162935 (OXN 0126518)
Regular
Jun 02, 2009

LEONARD WHITELEY vs. CONCRETE EXPRESS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY by GAB ROBINS

This case involves a cement truck driver who sustained multiple industrial injuries, including a specific injury in 1998 and a cumulative trauma injury thereafter. Both the applicant and defendant Cal Indemnity sought reconsideration of a prior award, raising issues of compensable body parts, 100% permanent disability, and apportionment between the two injuries. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case to the trial level to develop the record. This development will include obtaining a report from an independent physician to address the critical issue of apportionment of permanent disability between the distinct industrial injuries, as required by *Benson*.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLeonard WhiteleyConcrete ExpressState Compensation Insurance FundCalifornia Indemnity Insurance CompanyJoint Findings and AwardOrder of CommutationCumulative Trauma InjurySpecific InjuryApportionment
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 13,860 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