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. CV-23-0342
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2024

Matter of Wright v. Elmer W. Davis Inc.

Claimant Tyler Wright sustained a work-related right knee injury in 2018, leading to a workers' compensation claim. Following surgery, initial medical evaluations by his orthopedic physician, Dr. Gregg Nicandri, and an independent medical examiner, Martin Gingras, both determined a 45% schedule loss of use (SLU) of the right leg based on range of motion deficits. Dr. Nicandri later revised his assessment to 52.5% SLU by proportionally adjusting calculations according to the 2018 New York State Guidelines. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits based on a 51.667% SLU, but the Workers' Compensation Board modified this decision, crediting the initial 45% SLU opinions from both physicians. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the 2018 guidelines.

Schedule Loss of UseKnee InjuryRange of Motion DeficitsMedical GuidelinesWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyIndependent Medical ExaminationMaximum Medical ImprovementOrthopedic Physician
References
9
Case No. ADJ9895504
Regular
Jan 17, 2020

Elmer Umana vs. West Coast Arborists, Inc., Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

This case involves an employer's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The employer argued the award was untimely, and that the Qualified Medical Examiner's (QME) reports were inadmissible as they lacked substantial evidence and proper causation analysis. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding that any delay in issuing the award did not invalidate it. The Board also held that the QME's reports were admissible and constituted substantial evidence, as they detailed causation and reasoning for the impairment ratings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardElmer UmanaWest Coast ArboristsInc.Liberty Mutual Insurance CompanyADJ9895504Opinion and Order Denying Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact Award and OrdersAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)Injury Arising Out of and Occurring in the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04356
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2025

Curran v. JJML, Inc.

Plaintiff Edward Curran sued JJML, Inc., and related entities (JJML defendants) for injuries sustained from a slip and fall on an exterior deck at his employer's (Elmer W. Davis, Inc.) office space, alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law violations due to accumulated moss or algae. The JJML defendants initiated a third-party action against Davis for indemnification. The Supreme Court largely denied summary judgment motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by granting the JJML defendants summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 claim, concluding Curran was not a protected worker, and on their contractual indemnification claim against Davis, finding it arose from Davis's business. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the negligence claim against JJML, citing factual disputes regarding constructive notice of the hazardous condition. The Davis defendants' appeal of the denials against them was also denied.

Premises LiabilitySlip and FallMoss or AlgaeConstructive NoticeLabor Law § 200Statutory ProtectionContractual IndemnificationCommercial LeaseSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Elmer v. Marocchi Trucking Co.

In 1997, a claimant sustained injuries while working as a truck driver for Marocchi Trucking Company, Inc., leading to workers' compensation awards for physical injuries, depression, and narcotic addiction. The workers’ compensation carrier alleged a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a, presenting video surveillance that contradicted the claimant's asserted limitations, such as being wheelchair-bound. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently a panel of the Workers’ Compensation Board found no violation, crediting the claimant's explanations regarding heavy narcotic use and physicians' assumptions. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence and that resolving conflicting evidence was within the Board's province.

Workers' CompensationFraud AllegationSection 114-aSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyVideo SurveillanceCredibilityNarcotic AddictionAppellate ReviewAffirmed Decision
References
3
Case No. ADJ1932035 (ANA 0234626) ADJ2673288 (ANA 0234627) ADJ4019770 (ANA 0234628)
Regular
Jun 15, 2009

Elmer Bourland vs. LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding a prior order for a lifetime annuity of $900 per month. Defendant argued the original compromise and release agreement intended only a 15-year guaranteed payment period, not a lifetime annuity. However, the Board found the 1992 Order approving the settlement explicitly stated "lifetime annuity" and was not timely challenged by defendant. As no good cause such as fraud or mutual mistake was shown, the 1992 Order is now final and binding.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDELMER BOURLANDLONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTERTRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENTFindings and Orderlifetime annuityCompromise & Releaseindustrial injuryright kneeinternal system
References
14
Case No. ADJ7448890, ADJ7816111
Regular
Nov 08, 2012

ELMER SALAZAR MUNOZ vs. DENNY'S RESTAURANT, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award due to an incomplete and unorganized case record. Despite the judge admitting medical reports, they were not present in the electronic system for review. The Board found this failure to maintain a proper record hindered their ability to consider the defendant's petition. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for proper record preparation and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJCumulative Trauma InjuryPrima Facie CaseAdmissible Medical ReportsEAMSReport and Recommendation
References
1
Case No. ADJ2219719 (VNO 0499919)
Regular
Jul 02, 2009

ELMER COREAS vs. PEKING NOODLE COMPANY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The petition was dismissed as untimely because it was filed 29 days after the decision was served, exceeding the jurisdictional 20-day limit plus a potential 5-day mailing extension. The WCAB emphasized that filing deadlines are jurisdictional and that the Board lacks the power to grant untimely petitions. Had the petition been timely, it would have been denied on the merits according to the WCJ's report.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDELMER COREASPEKING NOODLE COMPANYZENITH INSURANCE COMPANYADJ2219719VNO 0499919OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING RECONSIDERATIONpetition for reconsiderationuntimelyLabor Code section 5903
References
3
Case No. ADJ16246113
Regular
Sep 15, 2025

ELMER HERNANDEZ vs. TACO BELL, PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANIES

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration and removal concerning an order compelling discovery of market rate guidelines and the identity of a knowledgeable person. The Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petition, deeming it untimely and from a non-final order, and denied the removal petition. The Board found the defendant failed to establish attorney work-product privilege, as no attorney asserted the privilege and no evidence demonstrated the guidelines were attorney work-product. Finally, the defendant waived its argument regarding the knowledgeable person by failing to adequately brief the issue.

Cost petitionerAttorney work productMarket rate guidelinesPerson most knowledgeablePetition for reconsiderationPetition for removalFindings and OrderWCJSubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harm
References
14
Case No. ADJ7942666; ADJ7942662
Regular
Feb 18, 2014

ELMER FERNANDEZ vs. DUNCAN BOLT COMPANY, TOKIO MARINE MANAGEMENT, INC.

This case concerns a lien claimant, Post-Surgical Rehab Specialists, seeking reconsideration of a dismissal order for failing to appear at a lien trial. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the dismissal in ADJ7942666 due to multiple missed appearances. However, the dismissal was amended to strike ADJ7942662 because that claim was not included in a prior notice of intention to dismiss. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning, finding the claimant's asserted neglect excusable for ADJ7942662 but not for ADJ7942666.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder for DismissalFailure to AppearLien TrialLien ConferenceNotice of Intention to DismissExcusable NeglectMiscalendared
References
0
Case No. ADJ12375088
Regular
Mar 24, 2023

ELMER FERRER vs. WEBER METALS INC., SENTRY SELECT STEVENS POINT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration filed by Weber Metals Inc. The defendant sought to overturn an order directing further record development through medical panels. The Board determined that while the WCJ's decision resolved threshold issues making it a final order, the defendant's challenge pertained solely to an interlocutory discovery order. Consequently, the Board applied the stricter "removal" standard and found that the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, thus denying the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and Orderdevelop the recordinternal/endocrinologypsychologyReport and Recommendationthreshold issuefinal decisioninterlocutory issue
References
5
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