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. 2021 NY Slip Op 06069 [199 AD3d 438]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2021

Matter of Ashanti v. New York City Conflicts of Interest Bd.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed the determination of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, finding that petitioner Karl J. Ashanti violated New York City Charter and City rule provisions. Ashanti was ordered to pay an aggregate civil penalty of $8,500. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that Ashanti used his City position to gain personal advantage in negotiations on behalf of his wife and utilized City letterhead to advance a legal position contrary to the City's interests. The court rejected the petitioner's due process and agency bias claims, concluding that the penalty imposed did not shock the conscience.

Conflicts of InterestPublic OfficialsEthical ViolationsCivil PenaltyDue ProcessAgency BiasSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hines v. Miller

The petitioner, convicted of second-degree murder after a guilty plea in New York Supreme Court, sought a writ of habeas corpus, arguing due process violations for the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea without new counsel or an evidentiary hearing, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court denied the petition, concluding that there was no constitutional right to an evidentiary hearing under the circumstances and no actual conflict of interest regarding counsel's performance. The court found that the petitioner's allegations of coercion contradicted his prior statements during the plea allocution and that the alleged coercion by counsel amounted to professional advice. A certificate of appealability was granted on the two primary questions.

Habeas CorpusGuilty Plea WithdrawalDue ProcessIneffective Assistance of CounselEvidentiary HearingActual Conflict of InterestRule 32(e)State Court RemediesAEDPA
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 1983

Claim of Morgante v. Southeastern Public Service Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board's decision, filed March 29, 1983, was affirmed on appeal. The Board had reversed an administrative law judge's disallowance, reinstating an award for total disability to the claimant. The claimant suffered a back injury in November 1979 while loading logs, which led to a myelogram and a decompressive laminectomy. Despite initial conflicting medical evidence and testimony regarding the causal link to employment and employer notice, the Board found the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The appellate court upheld the Board's decision, stating that the resolution of conflicting facts and credibility issues are beyond its review, provided a sufficient evidentiary basis exists for the Board's factual determination.

Workers' Compensation AppealCausationCredibility AssessmentConflicting Medical EvidenceAccident Arising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentLumbar InjuryMyelogramLaminectomyBoard Decision Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mathis v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co.

Carolyn Mathis appealed a judgment in her workers' compensation case, contesting a verdict of temporary total disability. She argued that the trial court's jury instruction regarding "unjustifiable refusal to accept employment" created an irreconcilable conflict when read alongside the "total incapacity" instruction and lacked sufficient evidentiary support. The appellate court disagreed, finding the instructions properly explained total incapacity and the insurer's affirmative defense under Texas workers' compensation laws. The court found no error or conflict in the charge and affirmed the trial court's discretion in submitting the instruction. Additionally, the judgment was affirmed on the basis of harmless error, as the jury ultimately found Mathis's injury resulted in total incapacity, negating any potential prejudice from the challenged instruction.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Total DisabilityJury InstructionsUnjustifiable Refusal of EmploymentTotal IncapacityAffirmative DefenseAppellate ReviewHarmless ErrorTexas LawJury Confusion
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vince Poscente International, Inc., Vince Poscente, and Michelle Poscente v. Compass Bank

This case is an appeal following a summary judgment granted in favor of Compass Bank against Vince Poscente International, Inc., Vince Poscente, and Michelle Poscente (the Poscentes). Previously, a summary judgment for Compass was reversed due to an insufficient affidavit. On remand, Compass presented new affidavits to establish the outstanding debt on a promissory note and guaranties. The Poscentes appealed, raising five issues including disputes over the amount owed, the lack of an original promissory note, alleged lack of evidentiary support for Compass's claims, the enforceability of guaranties with homestead waiver provisions, and conflicting choice of law clauses. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding the Poscentes' arguments lacked merit, concluding that the homestead waiver was severable and no conflict of laws issue was properly raised.

Summary JudgmentPromissory NoteGuaranty AgreementAffidavit SufficiencyLaw of the CaseSeverability ClauseHomestead WaiverChoice of LawTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate Review
References
38
Case No. ADJ3123745 (VNO 0551286) ADJ3791599 (VNO 0548958)
Regular
Apr 29, 2015

Steven Kroesen (Deceased), Jennifer Kroesen (Widow) vs. CITY OF TORRANCE, CITY OF LONG BEACH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a denial of death benefits for Steven Kroesen due to a dispute over the timeliness of the applicant's petition. The applicant claims their petition was timely delivered on November 12, 2014, via FedEx, but the WCAB's records show a filing date of November 13, 2014. The WCAB has returned the case to the administrative law judge for an evidentiary hearing to determine the exact filing date and address jurisdiction to consider the merits of the claim. This hearing will resolve whether the petition was filed within the statutorily allowed timeframe, considering Veterans Day and potential delays.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictionEvidentiary HearingJoint Findings and OrderReport of Workers' Compensation JudgeSupplemental PetitionFedEx deliveryR. SolisVeteran's Day
References
6
Case No. ADJ9641921, ADJ9640385
Regular
Mar 29, 2016

PAZ CORRALES vs. KIMPTON HOTEL AND RESTAURANT GROUP dba KHRG GOLETA, LLC, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) due to a problematic Addendum "A". Applicant contends Addendum "A" incorrectly settled their right to future attorney's fees and contains conflicting, unenforceable provisions regarding future claims and confidentiality. The Board found potential jurisdictional issues and inconsistencies with the law, returning the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the C&R should be set aside.

Petition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAddendum ALabor Code section 5710attorney's feesrescinded OACRevidentiary hearingmistake inadvertence excusable neglectunenforceable provisionsconfidential provision
References
1
Case No. ADJ8644013
Regular
Dec 27, 2013

ARTHUR VASQUEZ vs. GUARD SYSTEMS, CLAIMQUEST WALNUT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of an order finding no injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment. The Board adopted the judge's report, which detailed numerous inconsistencies in the applicant's testimony regarding the injury, prior medical history, and work activity. These credibility issues, supported by conflicting deposition and trial testimony, as well as documentary evidence, were the basis for the judge's determination that the applicant failed to meet their evidentiary burden.

AOE/COEPetition for Reconsiderationcredibilityinconsistent statementsprior injuriesliberal constructionevidentiary burdenFindings & OrderWCJ reportadministrative law judge
References
1
Case No. ADJ6800080
Regular
Mar 20, 2012

PINA ALICIA RODRIGUEZ vs. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES

The WCAB granted reconsideration to clarify evidentiary issues regarding the applicant's industrial injury. The primary issues to be developed are whether the treating physician was within a valid Medical Provider Network (MPN) or if proper notice was given, and whether the physician's opinions constitute substantial evidence given an inadequate medical history. Additionally, the WCAB requires further development of the record regarding the applicant's refusal of modified work and conflicting testimony about her voluntary resignation, which impacts temporary disability entitlement.

MPN noticeself-procured medical treatmenttemporary disabilitysubstantial medical evidencequalified medical evaluatorconcurrent employmentnon-industrial injurymodified workdeposition testimonytrial testimony
References
11
Case No. ADJ10473588, ADJ10473600
Regular
Jul 12, 2018

ANGEL MORAN vs. SELECT STAFFING, administered by CORVEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's order denying a replacement QME panel, and returned the matter to the trial level. The Board found that the WCJ's order was not based on admitted evidence, hindering meaningful review. Applicant alleged QME bias based on deposition testimony, which the Board noted could constitute a disqualifying conflict of interest under relevant regulations. The case requires further proceedings at the trial level to properly consider the applicant's request for a replacement QME based on an evidentiary record.

Petition for RemovalReplacement QME PanelDisqualifying Conflict of InterestWCJ OrderBiasDeposition TestimonyEvidentiary RecordLabor Code Section 5313Rule 31.5Rule 41.5
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,353 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