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. ADJ837893
Regular
Jun 04, 2009

GEORGE ALBERT JUAREZ vs. BAJA ROOFING, FIRST AMERICAN STAFFING, INTERTRIBAL STRATEGIC VENTURES EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL INJURY AND INDEMNITY, FIRST INTERCARE, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

This case involves a worker injured while employed by First American Staffing (First), a tribal entity, and allegedly also by Baja Roofing (Baja) as a special employer. The Tribal Appeals Court has already asserted jurisdiction over First, and the WCAB acknowledges it lacks jurisdiction over tribal entities like First due to sovereign immunity. The WCAB rescinded the prior findings and returned the case to the trial level, requiring the applicant to first pursue remedies against First in tribal court before the WCAB will consider Baja's liability. This is to determine if First secured adequate workers' compensation coverage as per their contract with Baja, which would then potentially absolve Baja of responsibility.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTribal sovereign immunityGeneral and special employmentJoint and several liabilityRes judicataCollateral estoppelThird-party administratorEmployee leasing companiesTribal Appeals CourtInsured status
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dudas v. Town of Lancaster

The claimant, a laborer, allegedly injured his right ankle on February 28, 2007, after slipping on ice at the employer's Town Hall. Despite ongoing symptoms, the claimant delayed seeking medical treatment and reporting the injury to the employer until June 27, 2007. The employer's workers' compensation carrier initially authorized medical care but later controverted the claim due to conflicting reports regarding the cause of injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim for failure to provide timely notice, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer did not waive the defense of timely notice and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in disallowing the claim given the claimant's delay in reporting and treatment.

Workers' CompensationTimely NoticeAnkle InjurySlip and FallEmployer PrejudiceMedical Treatment DelayClaim DisallowanceBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewWork-Related Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Albano v. Waldbaum's

In 1996, the claimant suffered a compensable injury to his right shoulder and neck. Thirteen years later, in January 2009, he claimed another work-related injury to his neck, right hand, and left leg. The Workers’ Compensation Board established a work-related neck injury from the 2009 incident and denied the employer's application for reconsideration, leading to this appeal. The employer argued that its request to cross-examine the claimant’s physicians was wrongly denied because their initial reports lacked reference to the 2009 accident. The court, however, found that this issue was thoroughly addressed at the hearing, and the physicians' reports, despite the omission, were consistent with the claimant's testimony. Crucially, experts, including the employer's own orthopedic surgeon, concluded that the injuries were causally related to the January 2009 incident. Consequently, the Board's decision to deny the cross-examination request was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryNeck InjuryRight Hand InjuryLeft Leg InjuryMedical ReportsCross-ExaminationCausationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesAppellate Division
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Evans v. Key Tronic Corp.

Plaintiff Maureen Evans sued White Pine Software, Visual T.I., Inc., Ontel Corporation, Key Tronic Corporation, Visual Technology Incorporated, and Lockheed Corporation, alleging personal injuries from using a defective computer keyboard during her employment. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing her claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Magistrate Judge Foschio recommended denying the motions, concluding that for repetitive stress injuries, the three-year statute of limitations commences upon the first onset of symptoms, not the first use of the product. Since Evans experienced symptoms in December 1992 and filed suit in May 1995, her complaint was timely. District Judge Arcara adopted the Report and Recommendation, thereby denying defendants' motions for summary judgment.

Repetitive Stress InjuryCarpal Tunnel SyndromeStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentProduct LiabilityAccrual of Cause of ActionNew York Civil Practice Law and RulesFederal JurisdictionToxic Tort DistinctionComputer Keyboard Injury
References
16
Case No. ADJ8011693
Regular
Apr 23, 2013

FRED DICKINSON vs. KING COMPANIES, LLC, dba SERVICE MASTER OF SANTA CRUZ, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Fred Dickinson's claim for workers' compensation benefits for a left eye injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Dickinson's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that his injury was not sustained in the course of employment. The denial was based on the administrative law judge's report, which found Dickinson to be an unreliable witness due to inconsistent statements regarding the injury's origin. Specifically, a physician's early report indicated the injury occurred at Dickinson's home, corroborating the employer's testimony about payment options for surgery being provided.

Petition for ReconsiderationAOE/COEcredibilityinconsistent statementssubstantial evidenceindustrial injuryleft eyehardwood flooringprivate payPQME
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1983

Claim of Hughes v. New York Telephone Co.

A line foreman, though not on duty, was requested by his employer to check a report of a broken pole. While preparing to use a company car parked in his driveway for this task, he sustained an injury to his mouth after stepping on a rake. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that this injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The employer appealed, arguing that, as a matter of law, the injury did not arise from employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, applying the 'special errand' exception to the general rule regarding risks of travel to and from work. It concluded that the Board's finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Errand ExceptionCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentOff-Duty WorkEmployee InjuryAppellate ReviewAffirmationOccupational HazardWorkplace Accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graziano v. 110 Sand Co.

The case involves an injured truck driver, originally employed by Horan Sand & Gravel, who was assigned to work at 110 Sand Company's site. After sustaining injuries on the job, he accepted workers' compensation benefits from Horan. Subsequently, he and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit against 110 Sand. 110 Sand moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff was its 'special employee' and thus, the acceptance of workers' compensation benefits from Horan barred the lawsuit against them. The Supreme Court granted this motion, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court agreed that the evidence supported the finding of a special employment relationship, and under Workers' Compensation Law, an injured worker who accepts benefits from their general employer is precluded from suing their special employer for the same injuries.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeGeneral EmployerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNew York LawEmployer LiabilityDerived Claim
References
10
Case No. ADJ13090134
Regular
Aug 14, 2025

OLIVIA RAMIREZ vs. ISIDRO A. MEJIA, ZINDER JANITORIAL CO., UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, BOURBON PUB/PARADIES LAGARDERE, SENTRY INSURANCE

Applicant Olivia Ramirez sustained an injury to her knee and ankle on November 17, 2019, while employed by Isidro A. Mejia and Zinder Janitorial Co., who were uninsured for workers' compensation. The Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) successfully joined Paradies Lagardere as a co-defendant, alleging joint employer status. The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) initially found Paradies to be a joint employer in Findings of Fact issued on May 15, 2025. Paradies sought reconsideration, disputing the joint employer finding and the injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The Appeals Board reviewed the petition, the UEBTF's answer, and the WCJ's report, ultimately granting reconsideration but deferring a final decision on the merits, indicating further review of the record and applicable law is necessary. The decision also clarified that Labor Code sections 2775 and 2776, related to employee classification, do not apply retroactively to the date of injury in this case.

Joint employerUninsured employersParadies LagardereZinder JanitorialIsidro MejiaWCJPetition for ReconsiderationAOE/COELabor Code section 5909EAMS
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Barto

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in Seneca County Court for insurance fraud in the third degree, falsifying business records in the first degree, defrauding the government, and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree. The charges arose from the defendant, an acting Village Justice, falsely reporting an assault to police, allegedly to obtain prescription pain medication. Medical evidence presented by the prosecution, including the absence of injuries despite extensive testing, contradicted the defendant's account of being strangled and struck. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment, rejecting the defendant's contentions regarding the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The court found that the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant falsely reported the incident and caused a false workers' compensation form to be filed. The appellate court also found no reason to modify the sentence despite improper prosecutorial statements.

Insurance FraudFalsifying Business RecordsDefrauding GovernmentFalse ReportingAssault ClaimMedical EvidenceLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceWorkers' CompensationJury Trial
References
8
Case No. ADJ18803348
Regular
May 30, 2025

FEDERICO PEREZ vs. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF WALNUT CREEK, WALNUT CREEK CHRISTIAN ACADEMY, CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration filed by the defendants, First Baptist Church of Walnut Creek, Walnut Creek Christian Academy, and Church Mutual Insurance Company, in the case of applicant Federico Perez. The applicant alleged a right shoulder injury on September 7, 2023. The defendants were admonished for violating WCAB Rule 10945 by misstating material facts and referencing documents not in the trial record. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings that the applicant provided pre-termination notice of the injury, and established injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and entitlement to temporary total disability, based on credible testimony and the Panel QME report of Dr. Adam Brooks. The decision also addressed the timeliness of the Board's action on reconsideration petitions under Labor Code section 5909 and the post-termination defense under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10).

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSTransmission of CaseNotice of TransmissionReport and RecommendationWCAB Rule 10945Misstatement of Facts
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 21,847 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