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. ADJ8649665
Regular
Mar 03, 2016

DONALD ALCANTAR vs. TOYS R US, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Donald Alcantar concerning a workers' compensation claim against Toys R Us and Zurich Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition and the report from the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). For the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which the WCAB adopted and incorporated, the Board has denied Alcantar's petition for reconsideration. The order denying reconsideration was issued on March 3, 2016.

WCABDonald AlcantarToys R UsZurich Insurance CompanyADJ8649665Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportadministrative law judgeorder denying reconsiderationSan Francisco
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1994

Hunt v. Hunt

This case involves an appeal stemming from a dispute between two brothers, Donald and Edward G. Hunt, over the ownership of Hunt Brothers Contractors, Inc. Donald commenced an action claiming 50% shareholder ownership in the corporation and seeking an accounting, which Edward denied. Edward counter-sued for money damages, alleging Donald improperly withdrew funds from joint bank accounts. The Supreme Court dismissed Donald's claim and ruled in favor of Edward in the second action. Donald appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court found that Donald failed to prove his 50% ownership claim by a preponderance of the evidence, noting inconsistencies in his statements and lack of capital contribution. The appellate court also deferred to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility, and Donald abandoned his appeal regarding the damages awarded to Edward.

Shareholder disputeCorporate ownershipFamily business disputeEvidentiary burdenCredibility assessmentAppellate reviewJoint bank accountsBusiness assetsStock ownershipCorporate records
References
9
Case No. 534402
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Donald Oberg

Donald Oberg, an automobile mechanic, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his request to amend his claim to include bilateral shoulder injuries. Oberg had an established claim for neck injuries from an August 2020 work-related motor vehicle accident. Conflicting medical opinions arose regarding the causal relationship of his bilateral shoulder injuries, with his treating orthopedist, Joseph Giovinazzo, opining they were causally related, and independent medical examiner Vito Loguidice concluding they were not. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially credited Giovinazzo and amended the claim, but the Board rescinded this, crediting Loguidice's opinion based on medical evidence and accident video. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination to disallow the amendment.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationTreating PhysicianAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionConflicting Medical OpinionsMotor Vehicle Accident
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00923 [180 AD3d 446]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2020

Denson v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.

Jessica Denson, a former employee of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination and hostile work environment, which led to the campaign initiating arbitration for alleged breaches of her non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreement (NDA). The arbitrator issued awards against Denson for disclosing confidential information in a federal action challenging the NDA and for statements on social media. The Supreme Court affirmed these awards, but the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the judgment and vacated the arbitration awards. The appellate court ruled that penalizing Denson for statements made in a judicial proceeding violated strong public policy protecting freedom of expression in court. Furthermore, the arbitrator exceeded his authority by considering events that occurred after the initial demand for arbitration, making the entire award invalid.

Arbitration award vacaturNon-disclosure agreement (NDA)Non-disparagement agreementPublic policyArbitrator authorityJudicial privilegeAppellate reviewEmployment disputeSex discriminationHostile work environment
References
39
Case No. CA 12-00454
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2012

DONALD BRAASCH CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. STATE INSURANCE FUND

Plaintiffs Donald Braasch Construction, Inc. (DBC) and CNA Insurance Company sought a declaration that defendant State Insurance Fund was conditionally obligated to indemnify them in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. The lawsuit stemmed from an accident in March 1994, and the personal injury plaintiffs commenced the lawsuit in April 1995. DBC failed to notify the defendant insurer until May 1997, prompting the defendant to disclaim coverage due to untimely notice. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, seeking reimbursement for half of the settlement amount and defense costs in the underlying lawsuit. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding existing questions of fact regarding the reasonableness of the delay. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that there remained triable issues of fact concerning whether DBC's belief in noncoverage for the accident and resultant litigation was reasonable.

Insurance coverageTimely noticeDisclaimer of coverageSummary judgmentReasonable excuseNoncoverageAppellate DivisionPersonal injuryIndemnificationDefense costs
References
11
Case No. ADJ7969168; ADJ9330687
Regular
Mar 23, 2016

Mario Alcantar vs. Alfredo Melchor, Zenith Insurance Company

This case involves applicant Mario Alcantar's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB previously rescinded a joint finding and substituted a new one finding applicant sustained a lumbar spine injury but not a cervical spine injury during specified employment periods. Alcantar sought reconsideration to include a cervical spine injury during a different, unspecified period. The WCAB denied the petition, affirming its prior decision and incorporating it by reference.

Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationJoint Findings of Factcumulative periodlumbar spinecervical spineindustrial injuryarising out of and occurring in the course of employmentWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardZenith Insurance Company
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 1989

Hartley v. Concrete

The plaintiffs, including Donald Hartley, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, that denied their motion for partial summary judgment on liability against defendants Spartan Concrete, Paul Schmergel & Son, and Seymar Associates d/b/a Seagull Associates. Donald Hartley, an iron-worker, was injured when wood decking collapsed at a construction site. The plaintiffs argued a violation of Labor Law § 240. The Supreme Court denied the motion, stating that while a Labor Law violation was established, proximate cause was not demonstrated. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding no triable issues of fact regarding proximate cause and ruling that the collapse of the unsafe elevated structure itself constituted the proximate cause of the injury, imposing absolute liability on the defendants under Labor Law § 240. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability was granted.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor Law § 240Absolute LiabilityProximate CauseSummary JudgmentElevated Work SiteScaffolding LawAppellate ReviewWorker Safety
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2023

Nusio v. Legend Autorama, Ltd.

Donald J. Nusio, an injured plaintiff, and his wife sued Legend Autorama, Ltd. for personal injuries sustained while fixing a garage door on the defendant's premises. The plaintiff fell from a slipping ladder, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion, then upon reargument, adhered to its denial for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence but granted it for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. Crucially, it reversed the lower court's decision on the cross-appeal, thereby adhering to the original denial of summary judgment for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Ultimately, the Appellate Division determined that triable issues of fact existed for all alleged causes of action, denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Dangerous ConditionWork Site SafetyGarage Door Repair
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 1997

Brennan v. RCP Associates

Donald Brennan, a steam fitter, was injured on a roof while repairing cooling towers when a service grating he was walking on tipped, causing him to fall. He and other plaintiffs sued the building owner and partners, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court initially denied their cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, reasoning that the permanent grating was not a safety device. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, clarifying that the platform was installed for access during repair work and therefore functioned as a scaffold under Labor Law § 240(1). Consequently, the appellate court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding the defendants liable.

Labor Law § 240(1)Scaffold LawElevation HazardsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReversalWorkplace InjuryBuilding RepairSafety DevicesGratuity AccidentOwner Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Sawyer

Dale R., an involuntarily committed patient at Central New York Psychiatric Center, diagnosed as a pedophile, moved for the appointment of either an independent or consulting psychiatric expert for his examination in a retention hearing. The underlying proceeding was initiated by Donald A. Sawyer for involuntary retention. The court denied the request for an independent expert, citing concerns about judicial neutrality in a controversial medical field (pedophilia diagnosis). However, the court granted the appointment of a consulting psychiatric expert, deeming it necessary to protect the respondent's due process liberty interests, as significant issues regarding diagnosis and prognosis were raised. The decision emphasized the court's discretion in appointing experts under Judiciary Law § 35 (4) and the need for both sides to present proof in open court.

involuntary civil commitmentpsychiatric expertdue processMental Hygiene LawCorrection Lawpedophilia diagnosisexpert testimonyjudicial discretionliberty interestsmental illness
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 158 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