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. ADJ8915327
Regular
Apr 22, 2015

MARIA HERNANDEZ vs. WAREHOUSE DEMO SERVICES, INC., ESIS

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Warehouse Demo Services, Inc. and ESIS regarding an award of total temporary disability (TTD) to applicant Maria Hernandez. The defendants argued the award was unsupported by evidence regarding Hernandez's ability to drive or perform modified duty while experiencing dizziness. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. The WCAB also admonished defense counsel for improperly citing and attaching an unadmitted deposition. The WCJ found applicant's testimony credible, supported by medical reports indicating dizziness and inability to drive or work safely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportADJ8915327deniedPaul E. ZayatGrancell Standerdeposition10842Lynn Devine
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Zalobin

The claimant, a security guard, was terminated from his employment after being found asleep on duty. He asserted that he experienced a medical episode, supported by a doctor's note detailing a history of dizziness and fuzzy vision. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially disqualified him from receiving benefits, ruling that his termination was due to misconduct. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the Board's findings were not supported by substantial evidence, as the employer's testimony largely relied on uncorroborated hearsay. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's findings.

Unemployment BenefitsMisconductSubstantial EvidenceCredibilityHearsaySecurity GuardMedical ConditionAppealRemittalNew York Unemployment
References
2
Case No. ADJ6561833
Regular
Aug 19, 2011

Stephen Resetar vs. CONSTRUCTORA AMORA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a worker, Stephen Resetar, who sustained a physical injury to his spine after falling from a ladder. Resetar also claimed a psychological injury, but had been employed for less than six months. Labor Code § 3208.3(d) generally bars compensation for psychiatric injuries in such cases unless caused by a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition." The Appeals Board found that Resetar's fall, caused by dizziness and falling from a ladder, did not qualify as a sudden and extraordinary event. Therefore, Resetar's claim for psychiatric injury is barred, and reconsideration is granted to reflect this decision.

Labor Code § 3208.3(d)psyche injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix-month employment rulereconsiderrescindcompensable injuryfall from ladderdizzinessdehydration
References
4
Case No. ADJ7948448
Regular
Nov 03, 1971

HENRY LOPEZ vs. WINDSOR SNF MANAGEMENT, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant who, while on a work assignment, experienced a diabetic episode causing dizziness. He stopped at a nearby market to eat and subsequently slipped and fell, injuring his hip and knee. The employer argued the injury was outside the scope of employment due to a deviation and the going and coming rule. However, the WCJ found the deviation was reasonable under the personal comfort rule for a known medical condition, and the Appeals Board adopted this reasoning, denying reconsideration. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings and resolved reasonable doubts in favor of the employee, consistent with precedent.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeCredibility FindingInjury to left hip and left kneeDiabetic episodeLow blood sugarDeviation from work assignmentGoing and coming ruleInsbexual evidence
References
1
Case No. ADJ8254774
Regular
Aug 16, 2013

SANJAY KUMAR vs. GILMAN COLLISION REPAIR, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves applicant Sanjay Kumar's petition for reconsideration of a denial of his workers' compensation claim. The administrative law judge (WCJ) found that Kumar failed to prove an industrial injury to his shoulder, hip, and thigh. This decision was based on conflicting testimony, specifically a coworker's account that the bumper was already removed and Kumar did not report pain, and the employer's testimony that Kumar cited dizziness from medication rather than an injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that Kumar did not meet his burden of proof due to the lack of credible evidence supporting his claim.

industrial injuryPetition for ReconsiderationWCJburden of proofpreponderance of the evidencecredibilitydemeanor of witnessescollision repair technicianleft shoulderleft hip
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Musicus v. Broadway Pastry Shop, Inc.

A billing clerk (claimant) suffered a fall and injury to her left arm and shoulder at work on April 10, 1978. Despite a history of high blood pressure and dizzy spells at home, the claimant denied such incidents at work, and a co-worker could not explain the fall. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the accident compensable, relying on the statutory presumption of Workers’ Compensation Law § 21. The appeal contended the fall was idiopathic and thus the presumption should not apply. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concurring that no substantial evidence rebutted the statutory presumption, as the injury occurred within the course of employment.

Workers' CompensationIdiopathic FallStatutory PresumptionCourse of EmploymentInjuryBilling ClerkHigh Blood PressureDizzy SpellsAppealCompensability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2005

Lajqi v. New York City Transit Authority

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, citing Labor Law § 240 (1). This decision was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The case involves an injured worker, Shpend Lajqi, who was not provided with adequate safety devices at a construction site, leading to a fall. The court found that the defendants' failure to provide proper safety devices was a proximate cause of the accident. Even a pre-existing medical condition that might have caused fainting or dizziness was not considered the sole proximate cause, thus not absolving the defendants of their responsibility under the Labor Law.

Labor LawScaffolding LawConstruction Site SafetySummary JudgmentLiabilityProximate CauseSafety DevicesElevation RiskNondelegable DutyWorker Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Muller v. Frankenburg-Rich Corp.

Claimant experienced dizzy spells, acute hypertensive crisis, cerebral anoxia, and possible myocardial infarction after inhaling heavy black smoke at work. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge established a causal relationship and awarded benefits, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board despite conflicting medical testimony from the employer's physician. The employer appealed, questioning the compensability, the employment status of a custodian, and alleging unfair treatment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence for the work-related injuries and upholding the Board's fact-finding authority, while finding no prejudice regarding the custodian issue.

Workers' CompensationOccupational ExposureSmoke InhalationCardiovascular EventNeurological InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawFact-Finding
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cicciarelli v. Westchester Health Care Corp.

The claimant, employed as a secretary, sustained an electrical shock in March 2006. She subsequently ceased working due to dizziness, cognitive problems, and numbness, leading her to apply for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the injury and awarded benefits, with the Workers' Compensation Board later modifying awards after June 2008 to a tentative rate. The employer and its third-party administrator appealed these determinations. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence for the accident's occurrence and upholding the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions. The employer's appeal regarding the denial of full Board review was deemed abandoned.

Workers' CompensationElectrical ShockNeurological InjuryCognitive ProblemsNumbnessCausationSubstantial EvidenceConflicting Medical OpinionsBoard ReviewAppeal Abandoned
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2005

United States v. DiPietro

During jury selection for a multi-defendant case, defendant Nicola Murdocca, who is undergoing chemotherapy for lung cancer, suffered a dramatic medical collapse in the courtroom. This incident, involving audible moaning, foaming at the mouth, and Murdocca yelling about his cancer, caused pandemonium and drew attention from jurors, other defendants, and defense counsel. Paramedics were called, and Murdocca was later discharged from the hospital after being treated for dizziness. The Government requested a new jury selection, citing contamination. The Court granted Murdocca's severance application on medical grounds and dismissed the existing jury pool, deeming them unable to be impartial due to the traumatic events and certain courtroom interactions.

Jury selectionMistrialDefendant illnessSeveranceJury impartialityCourtroom incidentChemotherapyLung cancerDue processJudicial discretion
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 24 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