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
Apr 07, 1979

Claim of Lennon v. Kaiser

The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a referee’s decision, determining that on January 24, 1975, the claimant was an employee of partners Ralph Kaiser and William Benson, and sustained injuries during employment. Testimony revealed conflicts regarding the claimant’s employment status and duties. Kaiser stated he never met the claimant until the day of the incident and instructed him to stay on the ground, yet admitted to an oral partnership with Benson and sharing profits. The claimant, conversely, testified both partners gave him directions, with Kaiser telling him to push shingles, and Benson having previously paid him. Despite the conflicting accounts, the board's finding of employment and injury was affirmed due to substantial evidence in the record.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipPartnershipAccidentInjurySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewConflicting TestimonyRoofing BusinessEmployee Status
References
0
Case No. 2017-1180 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2019

Merrick Med., P.C. v. A Cent. Ins. Co.

The case of Merrick Med., P.C. v A Central Ins. Co. concerned a provider's action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from an insurer. The defendant insurer, A Central Insurance Company, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, asserting that a portion of the claim exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule and other claims lacked medical necessity. Initially, the Civil Court denied the defendant's motion in part, making CPLR 3212 (g) findings. However, the Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the Civil Court's order. The appellate court concluded that the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been entirely granted, as the specific claim was properly paid under the fee schedule, and the remaining claims were successfully challenged on medical necessity grounds by the defendant, which the plaintiff failed to rebut.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgment motionWorkers' compensation fee scheduleMedical necessity defenseAppellate Term decisionInsurance litigationAssignee claimCivil procedurePeer review reportIndependent medical examination
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07110
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

People v. R.V.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted the defendant R.V.'s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, noting that R.V. purchased a false Covid-19 vaccination card to maintain employment as an essential worker during the pandemic. The decision highlighted that R.V.'s actions caused no specific or societal harm, supporting the dismissal in the interest of justice.

Indictment DismissalInterest of JusticeCPL 210.40COVID-19 Vaccination CardEssential WorkerAppellate ReviewDiscretionary DismissalLack of Harm
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyes v. Erickson

The court addressed an action brought by seven Latino tenants against defendant Sandra Erickson and the New York City Department of Housing, Preservation, and Development (HPD), alleging discrimination in the administration of the Neighborhood Entrepreneurs Program (NEP) and denial of participation in the Tenant Interim Lease (TIL) program. Plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and the Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA) were challenged by defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing the availability of state Article 78 proceedings. Claims under the HCDA (42 U.S.C. § 5309 and 24 C.F.R. §§ 6.1 and 91.1) were also dismissed, as the court found no private right of action under these provisions. Finally, the Section 1981 claim was dismissed due to insufficient pleading of intentional racial discrimination, and the remaining state law claims were declined supplemental jurisdiction.

Civil RightsHousing DiscriminationTenant RightsNeighborhood Entrepreneurs Program (NEP)Tenant Interim Lease (TIL) programSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)Rule 12(b)(6)Private Right of ActionArticle 78 Proceeding
References
30
Case No. ADJ3871980 (SBR 0332495) ADJ1578450 (SBR 0333829) ADJ7125261
Regular
Nov 05, 2010

ANITA BAKER vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, PSI, Adjusted and Administered By KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP

This case involves Anita Baker's workers' compensation claim against Southern California Permanente Medical Group. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the judge's decision. The primary dispute centered on the calculation of diminished future earning capacity, with the applicant arguing for a calculation based on actual lost earnings and the defendant relying on statutory guidelines and expert testimony. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found in favor of the applicant regarding the calculation of permanent disability, incorporating aspects of both expert opinions and considering the applicant's specific circumstances.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardSouthern California Permanente Medical GroupKaiser Permanente Medical GroupPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeOgilvie v. City and County of San Franciscodiminished future earning capacityFindings and Awardcontinuous traumabilateral upper extremities
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfgang Doerr v. Daniel Goldsmith / Cheryl Dobinski v. George O. Lockhart

This concurring opinion by Justice Abdus-Salaam addresses two cases, Doerr v Goldsmith and Dobinski v Lockhart, concerning negligence claims against domestic animal owners for injuries caused by their pets. The opinion reaffirms the long-standing "vicious propensities" rule established in Bard v Jahnke, which limits liability solely to strict liability when an owner knew or should have known of an animal's dangerous tendencies. Justice Abdus-Salaam rejects arguments to extend the Hastings v Sauve precedent, which allowed negligence claims for farm animals straying from property, to domestic pets. The opinion also refutes the distinction between an owner's active control and passive failure to restrain, emphasizing that a pet's volitional behavior is the ultimate cause of harm. Consequently, Justice Abdus-Salaam votes to dismiss the negligence claims in both cases and affirms the dismissal of Dobinski's strict liability claim due to insufficient evidence of the owners' prior knowledge of their dogs' propensities.

Animal LawNegligenceStrict LiabilityDomestic AnimalsFarm AnimalsVicious Propensity RuleDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2002

Goad v. Southern Electric International, Inc.

This case involves cross appeals from an order concerning Dennis Goad, a pipefitter injured in a fall at a steam cogeneration facility operated by Southern Electric International, Inc. Goad and his wife sued SEI and the facility owners, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). An earlier appeal dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Supreme Court partially granted defendants' motion, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding the statute inapplicable to routine maintenance work. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that replacing a main steam valve constituted maintenance, not construction, excavation, or demolition. However, the appellate court found that triable issues of fact existed regarding defendants' negligence under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, specifically concerning a prior improper weld on a hand railing that collapsed, thus denying defendants' motion to dismiss these remaining claims.

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentFall from HeightSummary JudgmentLabor Law §200Labor Law §241(6)Common-law NegligenceRoutine MaintenanceAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Johnson

This opinion from the Court of Appeals addresses the critical issue of juror impartiality in criminal trials, specifically concerning challenges for cause when prospective jurors express doubts about their fairness. The Court consolidated three cases: People v. Johnson and People v. Sharper, both robbery cases involving juror bias towards police testimony, and People v. Reyes, a drug sale case where jurors harbored biases related to drug abuse and a defendant's prior convictions. The Court reiterated that when potential jurors reveal a state of mind likely to preclude impartial service, they must provide unequivocal assurance of their ability to set aside any bias and render a verdict based solely on evidence. Concluding that the trial judges in these cases failed to obtain such unequivocal assurances, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of convictions in Johnson and Sharper, and reversed the Appellate Division's affirmation of conviction in Reyes, ordering a new trial. This decision underscores the fundamental constitutional right to an impartial jury and clarifies the standard for excusing biased jurors under CPL 270.20.

Jury SelectionVoir DireJuror ImpartialityChallenge for CauseUnequivocal AssurancePolice Testimony BiasDrug Offense BiasPrior Conviction BiasCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. ADJ10656062
Regular
Jul 20, 2018

FLORIVINA VIEYRA vs. KAISER PERMANENTE, SEDGWICK CMS

The Appeals Board denied Kaiser Permanente's Petition for Removal because it failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted, requiring more than the possibility of an adverse reconsideration. The Board found the WCJ's analysis persuasive, concluding that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Kaiser Permanente and its counsel were admonished that filing a frivolous petition could result in sanctions.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationFrivolous PetitionSanctionsLab Code § 5813Cal. Code Regs. § 10561WCJ Report
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 20,789 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