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. ADJ18001417
Regular
Sep 05, 2025

CHRISTOPHER CANDIA vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Christopher Candia v. City and County of San Francisco. The Board adopted the Arbitrator's Report and Recommendation, which found applicant Christopher Candia's meningioma to be a compensable industrial injury. The decision was based on the cancer presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1 for firefighters, as the medical opinion of treating neurosurgeon Dr. Bruce McCormack classified the tumor as Grade II, indicating malignant features, and evidence showed Candia's exposure to carcinogens during his employment. The Board upheld the arbitrator's determination, giving greater weight to Dr. McCormack's opinion over the IME Dr. Raye Bellinger's.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationArbitrator's ReportLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management Systemsubstantial evidenceneurosurgeontreating physicianIMEmeningioma
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fleming v. MaxMara USA, Inc.

Plaintiff Yvonne Fleming, an African-American woman and former Director of Human Resources and Payroll for MaxMara USA, Inc., sued her employer and two individual supervisors, John Gleeson and Luigi Caroggio, alleging race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Law. Fleming claimed that Gleeson made a racially charged comment, and both Gleeson and Caroggio subjected her to poor treatment and derogatory remarks. She also asserted retaliation after reporting alleged preferential treatment of Italian employees. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Fleming's termination, including performance issues and failure to follow company protocols. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims, finding that Fleming failed to establish a prima facie case for race discrimination (partially due to being replaced by another African-American woman), that the hostile work environment claims lacked sufficient severity or pervasiveness or were time-barred, and that the retaliation claims did not overcome the defendants' legitimate business reasons.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIINew York City Human Rights LawSummary Judgment MotionAdverse Employment ActionPrima Facie CasePretext
References
63
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 24162 [84 Misc 3d 931]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2024

James Riv. Group Holdings, Ltd. v. Fleming Intermediate Holdings LLC

The case, James River Group Holdings, Ltd. v Fleming Intermediate Holdings LLC, addresses a dispute over a stock purchase agreement (SPA) for the sale of James River's reinsurance subsidiary, JRG Re, to Fleming. Fleming refused to close the transaction, citing alleged breaches related to JRG Re's reserves and liquidity, and demanded a $78 million concession. James River sought specific performance through a mandatory preliminary injunction, arguing that Fleming's claims were baseless and contrary to the SPA's terms, particularly a clause prohibiting challenges to reserves and outlining a post-closing price adjustment process. The Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Masley, granted James River's motion, finding a clear likelihood of success on the merits, established irreparable harm due to reputational damage and operational disruption, and a favorable balance of equities, compelling Fleming to close the deal within 10 days.

Specific PerformanceStock Purchase AgreementBreach of ContractPreliminary InjunctionMandatory InjunctionContract InterpretationIrreparable HarmBalance of EquitiesReinsurance SubsidiaryClosing Conditions
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fleming v. Verizon New York, Inc.

Plaintiff Bianca Fleming sued her former employer, Verizon New York, Inc., for employment discrimination under Title VII, ADA, HRL, and NYCHRL. Fleming alleged racial and gender discrimination, a sexually hostile work environment, and failure to accommodate her medical condition from 1998 to 2001. She also claimed retaliation for her complaints. Verizon moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and statute of limitations. The court granted Verizon's motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing certain Title VII claims for retaliation and hostile work environment, and dismissing other claims as time-barred, while allowing specific continuing violation claims to proceed.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationGender DiscriminationSexually Hostile Work EnvironmentDisability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VII Civil Rights ActNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawAdministrative Exhaustion
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2013

Christopher C. v. Bonnie C.

This divorce action between Christopher C. and Bonnie C. addresses equitable distribution, spousal maintenance, and counsel fees. The defendant, Bonnie C., who has a court-appointed guardian due to mental and emotional difficulties, had separated from the plaintiff in 2003 and informally divided marital assets. The court ratified this prior asset division, noting the defendant had dissipated her share. Finding the defendant unable to work and self-support, and the plaintiff capable of employment despite his claims of disability, the court awarded the defendant non-durational permanent maintenance of $2,500 per month and substantial attorney's fees. The plaintiff's motion to suspend or refund temporary maintenance was denied.

DivorceSpousal MaintenanceEquitable DistributionGuardianshipMental Health IssuesAsset DissipationAttorney's FeesFinancial CapacityPermanent MaintenanceMarital Property
References
12
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02138 [182 AD3d 658]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2020

Matter of Kristen MM. v. Christopher LL.

This case involves an appeal by Christopher LL. (father) against Kristen MM. (mother) regarding two amended orders from the Family Court of Schenectady County. The Family Court had granted the mother permission to relocate with their twin children to Arizona and dismissed the father's petition for joint legal and physical custody. The father contended that the court's determination lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that the relocation was in the children's best interests due to the mother's role as the primary caretaker and the father's sporadic involvement. The court also found that the fashioned visitation schedule preserved the relationship between the father and the children.

Child RelocationCustody ModificationBest Interests of the ChildParental VisitationFamily Court DecisionAppellate ReviewParental ResponsibilityChild SupportParental AgreementSchenectady County
References
12
Case No. ADJ2903398 (BAK 0150336)
Regular
Feb 27, 2012

ERIC FLEMING, Deceased GINGER FLEMING vs. KENAI DRILLING, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Eric Fleming's widow, Ginger Fleming, as the applicant in a workers' compensation claim against Kenai Drilling and its insurer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant. The board also noted that no lien for attorney Hildreth's services had been filed, nor had a Petition for Costs.

Petition for RemovalWCJ reportlienWCABLabor Code section 5811Petition for Costsprejudiceirreparable harmworkers' compensationdeceased
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hansen v. Post

The petitioner, a child protective worker, sought custody of Christopher Post, whose parents, Rose and William Post, had a documented history of child abuse and neglect, leading to the removal of seven other children from their care. Christopher had also been involved in two prior neglect proceedings. The parents exhibited severe deficiencies in parenting skills, an inability to address Christopher's emotional disturbances, and a history of rejecting assistance. After voluntarily placing Christopher with the petitioner, who became his psychological parent, they abruptly cut off contact. The Family Court found extraordinary circumstances, justified judicial intervention, and granted custody to the petitioner, a decision which the appellate court subsequently affirmed.

Custody DisputeParental UnfitnessChild NeglectExtraordinary CircumstancesFamily Court Act Article 6Child Protective ServicesAppealParental RightsPsychological ParentEmotional Disturbance
References
5
Case No. CV-24-0676
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Christopher A. Augone

Claimant Christopher A. Augone had an established claim for work-related neck injuries sustained in 2021. Questions arose regarding prior injuries after a physician referenced a pre-2021 MRI. Despite claimant's denials, records showed a 2017 emergency room visit for neck pain. The employer and carrier alleged a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation for intentional misrepresentation. However, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found that the carrier failed to prove intent, accepting claimant's explanation that he didn't consider the 2017 incident significant and forgot about it. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence regarding the lack of intentional misrepresentation.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraud AllegationMaterial MisrepresentationIntent to DeceiveSubstantial Evidence ReviewCredibility FindingNeck Injury ClaimPrior Medical HistoryAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fleming v. Graham

This case addresses whether plaintiff Cedric Fleming's facial injuries, specifically scars on his forehead and right upper eyelid, constitute a "permanent and severe facial disfigurement" under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, qualifying as a "grave injury." Fleming, an employee of Pinstripes Garment Services, LLC, sustained these injuries in a collision with a school bus. He sued Evergreen Bus Service, Inc., and its driver, who then initiated a third-party action against Pinstripes for indemnity/contribution, claiming Fleming's injuries were "grave." Supreme Court denied Pinstripes' summary judgment motion, but the Appellate Division affirmed, finding factual questions. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed, establishing a standard for "severe facial disfigurement" which requires the injury to greatly alter the face's appearance and be regarded as "abhorrently distressing, highly objectionable, shocking or extremely unsightly" by a reasonable person. Applying this standard, the Court found that Fleming's injuries, despite numerous scars and some permanency, did not meet the "severe" disfigurement threshold, thereby granting Pinstripes' motion for summary judgment.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryFacial DisfigurementPermanent InjurySevere InjuryThird-Party ActionCommon-Law IndemnityContributionSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 1,482 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