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

Lowcher v. Beame

Plaintiff, a former school secretary, initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, the New York Teachers’ Retirement System, and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System. She alleged deprivation of her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection after her application for accident disability benefits was denied. The Medical Board of the New York Teachers’ Retirement System determined her disability was not proximately caused by a 1970 assault, and denied her requests for legal representation, witnesses, and access to a referred physician's report. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Judge Metzner denied the motion, ruling that while a full adversarial hearing was not required, the plaintiff was entitled to know the evidence upon which the Retirement System made its determination, implying a due process violation in denying access to the medical report.

Due ProcessEqual ProtectionCivil Rights ActionDisability BenefitsAccident DisabilityAdministrative LawMedical BoardRight to CounselCross-ExaminationAccess to Evidence
References
8
Case No. ADJ9217154
Regular
May 25, 2016

Dave Tamplen vs. State of California Department of Corrections

This case involves a State Corrections Officer who claimed psychological and cardiac injury due to cumulative work stress. The defendant employer argued for dismissal due to the applicant's failure to appear at trial, claiming a due process violation and lack of necessary foundational evidence for medical reports. However, the Appeals Board affirmed the original findings, holding that the employer's failure to comply with discovery rules and subpoena the applicant precluded their due process argument. The Board also found substantial medical evidence, including Agreed Medical Evaluator reports and the applicant's deposition, supported the injury findings, the cumulative injury period, and rejected the employer's defense that the injury was substantially caused by a good faith personnel action.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderCorrections OfficerCorrections CounselorPsycheHeart InjuryCirculatory SystemCumulative InjuryStatute of Limitations
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Henry v. Bass-Masci

Claimant, a home health aide for Beatrice Bass, sustained injuries in a bus accident and sought workers' compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found Elizabeth Bass-Masci, who paid claimant, to be the employer and liable under the Workers' Compensation Law. This determination was affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Bass-Masci appealed, alleging claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a by making false statements and that her due process rights were violated. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that claimant did not violate § 114-a due to memory loss, and that the due process argument was waived due to an untimely request. Other contentions regarding claimant's withdrawal from the workforce and the identity of the employer were deemed unpreserved for review.

Home health aideBus accidentWork-related injuryEmployer liabilityWorkers' Compensation benefitsFalse statementsDue process rightsCross-examinationMedical evidenceMemory loss
References
7
Case No. ADJ603509 (LAO 888258)
Regular
Oct 25, 2010

PATRICIA NUNEZ vs. MAINSTAY BUSINESS SOLUTIONS

This case concerns lien claimants seeking reconsideration of a prior Board decision. The Board denied their petition, affirming its prior ruling that they failed to prove they were part of the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN) when providing services. Lien claimants' arguments regarding the MPN's validity and due process were waived due to untimeliness and failure to raise issues earlier. Furthermore, the Board found no denial of due process as lien claimants had actual notice of the defendant's petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider Network (MPN)Lien ClaimantsReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)Compromise and ReleaseDue ProcessService of Process
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 1982

Colonial Bank v. Worms

Colonial Bank initiated an action to enforce an English judgment against Martijn L. Worms. Worms argued the judgment should not be enforced due to a denial of due process and an inconvenient forum. The court rejected both arguments, finding English procedure compatible with due process and the English court a convenient forum. However, the court granted Worms leave to amend his answer to assert a third defense, claiming the underlying contract violated the Trading With the Enemy Act. The court stated that Colonial Bank's motion for summary judgment would be granted unless Worms provided sufficient evidence for his third defense by October 22, 1982.

Foreign Judgment EnforcementDue ProcessInconvenient ForumPersonal GuaranteeTrading With the Enemy ActSummary JudgmentLeave to AmendDefault JudgmentEnglish LawNew York CPLR
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Paragon Process Service, Inc.

Paragon Process Service, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which held the company responsible for unemployment insurance contributions for its process servers from 1978 to 1980. Paragon contended that these process servers were independent contractors, not employees, over whom it exercised no control beyond legal requirements. The court, referencing precedents like *Matter of 12 Cornelia St. (Ross)*, determined that the Board lacked a rational basis for classifying the process servers as employees. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision. The matter was then remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings consistent with this new finding.

Unemployment insuranceIndependent contractorProcess serversEmployer liabilityEmployee classificationAppellate reviewAdministrative decisionRational basis reviewLabor lawNew York law
References
2
Case No. ADJ183801 (LAO 0823088)
Regular
Sep 30, 2016

JOSEFINA PLAZA vs. AARON INDUSTRIES, INC., PMA INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a finding that Aaron Industries unreasonably delayed paying a lien claimant. The original decision imposed a penalty, but the defendant argued it was denied due process as its objection was not considered. The WCAB agreed, finding the defendant's due process rights were violated because the administrative law judge issued the decision without reviewing the defendant's timely filed objection. The matter was therefore returned to the trial level for proper consideration of the defendant's arguments.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code Section 5814Unreasonable DelayOrder to Pay Lien ClaimantDue Process ViolationObjection to Amended PetitionLaw Offices of Graiwer KaplanW-9 formStipulations
References
3
Case No. ADJ7552195, ADJ7564482
Regular
Feb 22, 2013

REYNA MARQUEZ vs. SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURACE CO., SEDGWICK CMS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case concerns two workers' compensation claims for industrial injuries to the applicant's left shoulder and low back, respectively. The defendants, Zurich and ACE, petitioned for reconsideration, arguing that the findings of industrial injury were not supported by substantial medical evidence and that they were denied due process regarding an agreed medical evaluator's supplemental report. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding that the defendants waived their due process objections by failing to raise them at the trial level or in their initial petition. The Board incorporated the WCJ's report, which found no basis for the defendants' arguments.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSENSIENT TECHNOLOGIESZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANYACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANYSEDGWICK CMSSPECIALTY RISK SERVICESAGREED MEDICAL EVALUATORDR. CHARLES F. XELLERSUPPLEMENTAL REPORTFINDINGS OF FACT
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Burns v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits due to injuries from an automobile accident. As an employee of the Workers’ Compensation Board, his claim was processed through a neutral outside arbitration process. An arbitrator established his claim and average weekly wage. Claimant appealed, arguing his average weekly wage should have been calculated differently due to a recent promotion, as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (2). An arbitration panel declined to address this argument because it was not raised before the arbitrator. The appellate court affirmed the panel's decision, citing that the panel could decline review of issues not previously raised, consistent with 12 NYCRR 300.13 [e] [1] [iii].

ArbitrationAverage Weekly WageWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewIssue PreservationAdministrative LawProcedural Due ProcessStatutory InterpretationWorkers’ Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 12,402 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