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

People v. Easter

This case involves a defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment on grounds of insufficient evidence before the Grand Jury, selective enforcement, and in the interest of justice. The core issue revolves around the admissibility of privileged communications, specifically social worker-client, physician-patient, and husband-wife privileges, presented to the Grand Jury. The defendant is accused of child abuse against his three-month-old son, Jason, who sustained a fractured skull, ribs, and other injuries. The court found that the physician-patient privilege was waived under CPLR 4504(b) due to child abuse. The husband-wife privilege did not apply to Mrs. Easter's testimony as it was not a confidential marital communication. Crucially, the court determined that the child, Jason, was the "client" of the social workers under CPLR 4508(3), thus allowing their testimony regarding the defendant's admissions of harming the child. Consequently, the social workers' testimony was deemed competent and properly considered by the Grand Jury. The court also rejected the argument for Miranda warnings, stating the defendant was not in custody. The motion to dismiss the indictment based on insufficiency of evidence was denied.

Motion to Dismiss IndictmentGrand Jury Evidence SufficiencyPrivileged Communications AdmissibilitySocial Worker-Client Privilege ExceptionChild Abuse ProceedingsPhysician-Patient PrivilegeHusband-Wife Privilege ScopeMiranda RightsCPLR 4508 Child ClientCriminal Procedure Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2005

Haque v. Crown Heights NRP Associates, LP

The plaintiff suffered personal injuries while working on a hanging scaffold at a construction site where BFC Construction Corp. served as the general contractor. The incident occurred on a Sunday, leading the plaintiff to allege violations of Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. BFC moved for summary judgment, arguing these labor laws were inapplicable because the plaintiff lacked permission to work on Sundays. The Supreme Court denied BFC's motion, and the appellate court affirmed, citing a triable issue of fact concerning the plaintiff's permission to perform work on the date of the accident, based on a coworker's affidavit.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law 240Labor Law 241Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewGeneral ContractorScaffold AccidentWorker SafetyTriable Issue of Fact
References
5
Case No. STK 0201492
Regular
Feb 22, 2008

STEVE J. MURRAY vs. DELTA SIGNS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a dismissal for lack of prosecution. The dismissal was rescinded because the applicant's petition for reconsideration was timely filed on the next business day after a Sunday, and there was doubt about proper service of the notice of intention to dismiss. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the merits.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalLack of ProsecutionService of NoticeDue ProcessRescind DismissalTimeliness of PetitionBusiness Day FilingOfficial Address Record
References
1
Case No. ADJ1178440
Regular
Apr 05, 2010

ERNESTO VENTURA vs. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order denies reconsideration of a prior decision. The applicant argued the defendant's petition for reconsideration was untimely, but the Board found it was timely filed because the 25th day following service was a Sunday. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and reasoning, incorporating it into its decision to deny the petition. Therefore, the defendant's petition for reconsideration has been denied.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely filingCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10508Sunday computationDenied reconsiderationADJ1178440ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANYBMW OF NORTH AMERICAERNESTO VENTURA
References
0
Case No. ADJ4706075 (AHM 0092392)
Regular
Jul 08, 2010

Carl Burd vs. The Boeing Co, American Insurance Guarantee

Lien claimants sought reconsideration of an order dismissing their liens, alleging they complied with court orders and timely objected to dismissal. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed their petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The WCAB noted that the 25-day filing deadline, extended due to a Sunday, expired on May 10, 2010, while the petition was dated May 11, 2010, and filed May 12, 2010. As the filing deadline is jurisdictional, the untimely petition had to be dismissed.

Lien claimantsPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LiensWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJuntimely petitionjurisdictional time limitLabor CodeCal. Code Regs.Registry
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Carroll v. Provenzano

An employer and their insurance carrier appealed a Workmen's Compensation Board decision. The claimant, a bartender, was injured slipping on a public sidewalk while returning home for lunch during an unscheduled Sunday shift. The employer had directed the claimant to go home for lunch but remained subject to recall. Appellants argued this was a conventional off-premises injury, but the court found special circumstances due to the employer's direction and continuous recall, which meant employment was not interrupted. The court affirmed the Board's finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentLunch BreakSpecial CircumstancesOff-Premises InjuryEmployer ControlContinuous RecallBartenderPublic Sidewalk
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2011

Claim of Roberts v. Waldbaum's

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision concerning the death of a grocery store employee. The decedent, while acting as store manager on a busy Super Bowl Sunday, collapsed and died from a myocardial infarction. His claimant sought workers’ compensation death benefits, which were initially denied but later granted by the Board, finding a causal relationship to employment. The employer and its claims administrator appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding that substantial medical evidence supported the finding that work-related stress and an altercation contributed to the decedent's death.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCausal RelationshipMyocardial InfarctionEmployment StressWork-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyd v. Coughlin

Petitioners, inmates at Clinton Correctional Facility, challenged a determination by the facility's Adjustment Committee via a CPLR article 78 proceeding after refusing Sunday labor. They faced misbehavior reports, a hearing, and subsequent punishments including job suspension and keeplock. During the hearing, they were denied rights to present documentary evidence, call witnesses, or have legal representation. The petitioners contended they were entitled to more extensive due process, citing precedent, but the Supreme Court's judgment, which dismissed their application, was affirmed on appeal. The appellate court referenced a prior ruling which deemed similar inmate confinement as nonpunitive, thus not triggering strict due process standards.

Inmate rightsDue processAdjustment CommitteePrison disciplineKeeplockCorrectional facilityAdministrative hearingCPLR article 78Appellate reviewConstitutional law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jordan v. County of Chemung

Plaintiff Edith Jordan filed a lawsuit against Chemung County and its officials alleging violations of federal and state laws, including the FMLA, Title VII, First and Fourteenth Amendments, NYSHRL, and the New York Constitution. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court granted in part and denied in part. The court dismissed Plaintiff's FMLA interference, Title VII discrimination and retaliation, Equal Protection, and most state law claims. However, Plaintiff's FMLA retaliation claim concerning the elimination of her Sunday shift, opposition to unemployment benefits, and refusal to reinstate hours, along with her First Amendment retaliation claim regarding the cessation of call-in shifts, survived summary judgment.

FMLA RetaliationSummary JudgmentGender DiscriminationFirst Amendment RetaliationDue ProcessNYSHRLNew York ConstitutionPublic EmployeeAdverse Employment ActionPretext
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. Proctor Paint & Varnish Co.

The dissenting opinion argues against an extension of landowner liability for injuries sustained by trespassing children. It contends that the occupant's conduct in managing drippings from a fill pipe was reasonable, even if children misused the facilities. Citing previous cases like Cuevas and Conway, the dissent asserts that landowners should not be held liable merely because children trespass and engage in self-injurious mischief, especially when a balance of convenience between risk and reasonable use of premises should be considered. The dissent highlights that the children entered by climbing over a wall on a Sunday when the plant was unattended, and there were no prior incidents of children playing with fire. Furthermore, it emphasizes that a 12-year-old child, as the infant plaintiff, should understand the inherent dangers of fire, referencing the Restatement, 2d, Torts.

Trespasser liabilityattractive nuisance doctrinelandowner dutychild injurydissenting opinionreasonable use of landforeseeability of harmpremises liabilityunattended propertyfire hazard
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 14 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