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. 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. ADJ1941485 (VNO 0263845) ADJ4137418 (VNO 0270976) ADJ1018222 (MON 0140131)
Regular
Dec 15, 2008

GERTRUDE CHISM vs. K-MART/SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, Permissibly Self-Insured Administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition to remove WCJ Zarett as moot due to his retirement, and denied the request for a commissioner's hearing on sanctions as premature. The Board remanded the case to the trial level for a full evidentiary hearing on the defendant's allegations regarding the applicant's attorneys, as these factual issues are best addressed by a new Workers' Compensation Judge. The defendant's numerous petitions for removal, vacating hearings, and stays were largely dismissed or denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGertrude ChismK-Mart/Sears Holding CorporationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for Commissioner's HearingRemoval of Judge ZarettVacate HearingStay ProceedingsImposition of SanctionsGuardian Ad Litem
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldlust v. Bates

In this Article 78 proceeding, the petitioner sought to annul the revocation of her appointment as a social case worker or to obtain an evidentiary hearing. Her appointment was rescinded due to suspicions of food stamp fraud, stemming from an alleged failure to report income from a part-time job. Respondents argued the rescission was a discretionary administrative act and that petitioner had no right to a prior hearing. The court, citing Board of Regents v Roth, determined that the petitioner's right to an evidentiary hearing, particularly when her reputation is affected, is comparable to that of a probationary employee. Consequently, the petition was granted in part, remanding the matter to the Department of Social Services for an evidentiary hearing within 50 days to address the allegations of food stamp regulation violations.

Article 78Probationary EmploymentDue ProcessEvidentiary HearingFood Stamp FraudRescission of AppointmentAdministrative ReviewReputationWestchester County
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05688
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v. New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings

Sahara Construction Corp. challenged a determination by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that upheld civil penalties and a restitution order for violations related to a home improvement project. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed OATH's determination, finding that the imposed civil penalties of $5,000 and restitution of $230,266.63 were not disproportionate and fell within statutory guidelines. The Court also affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motions to dismiss and compel discovery, concluding they were not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Home Improvement ContractorsCivil PenaltiesRestitution AwardAdministrative Code ViolationsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSense of FairnessAdministrative Summons
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capone v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District

The petitioner, an employee of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District (UFSD), was terminated after two adult students reported sexually explicit conversations and offers of sexual acts from him. The UFSD charged the petitioner with 18 specifications of misconduct under Civil Service Law §75. Following a hearing where 17 charges were sustained, the hearing officer recommended termination, which the UFSD adopted. The petitioner initiated an article 78 proceeding, arguing insufficient notice, lack of substantial evidence, and an excessively severe penalty. The court confirmed the determination, finding the charges adequate, supported by substantial evidence from student testimonies, and that termination was not disproportionate given precedent, despite the petitioner's previously unblemished 19-year record.

Employment terminationSexual misconductAdministrative reviewCivil Service LawSufficiency of evidencePenalty proportionalityArticle 78Due processHearing officer findingsPublic education employee
References
6
Case No. ADJ2765298 (RIV 0026091)
Regular
Aug 13, 2010

PETE SORIA vs. FLEETWOOD ALUMINUM PRODUCTS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For RELIANCE INSURANCE, In Liquidation

The WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded a WCJ's order awarding costs to lien claimants. The WCJ's original order lacked a proper evidentiary hearing, a summary of evidence, and an opinion explaining the grounds for the decision, violating due process and Board rules. The Board found the WCJ's subsequent attempt to rescind the order was untimely. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including an evidentiary hearing and a properly documented decision.

ADJ2765298RIV 0026091ReconsiderationLien ConferenceWCJ OrderStipulated AwardPermanent Total DisabilityRemovalRescinding OrderEvidentiary Hearing
References
1
Case No. LAO 0799368, LAO 0800603
Regular
Apr 28, 2008

ALICE B. PARKINSON vs. THE OLIVE GARDEN, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior order allowing a lien in full. The WCAB found that the administrative law judge (WCJ) failed to comply with procedural rules by not conducting an evidentiary hearing and that the defendant likely never received proper notice of the lien trial. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial level for an evidentiary hearing on the lien claim, with the WCAB also noting the defendant's potential culpability for non-appearance.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien TrialCompromise and ReleaseAffidavit of Defendant Re: Resolution of LiensDue ProcessEvidentiary HearingWCAB Rule 10562Notice of TrialService of Process
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Sanad

The People moved to reargue the court's September 5, 2014 decision that granted the defendant's motion for a Huntley hearing. The defendant, a police officer, was questioned by an Assistant District Attorney (ADA) regarding a prior arrest report, recanting an earlier statement where she claimed to have witnessed an assault. The People argued the defendant was not in custody or interrogated, thus not entitled to a Huntley hearing. The defendant countered that her statement was compelled, potentially under threat of job forfeiture, making it involuntary. The court granted the reargument motion but ultimately adhered to its prior decision, citing People v Weaver which mandates a Huntley hearing whenever a defendant claims a statement was involuntary. The court will determine the voluntariness of the statement by reviewing the totality of the circumstances at the hearing.

Criminal LawMotion PracticeReargumentHuntley HearingVoluntary StatementPolice OfficerSelf-IncriminationMiranda RightsGarrity RightsPublic Employment
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rushnek v. Ford Motor Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that Ford Motor Company was entirely responsible for a claimant's hearing loss, which began with a 13% pre-employment loss and progressed to 23.2% by retirement. Ford appealed this decision, challenging its liability for the pre-existing portion of the hearing loss, especially considering the timing of the relevant Workers' Compensation Law provisions. The court clarified that the date of disablement, in this instance, was August 1974, thus making Workers' Compensation Law § 49-ee applicable. It determined that while the last employer is generally liable for total hearing loss, an exception exists for pre-existing, occupationally caused hearing loss, allowing for reimbursement. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case, instructing further proceedings to ascertain if the claimant's initial hearing loss was work-related, which would then allow Ford to seek reimbursement from prior employers.

Workers' Compensation LawOccupational hearing lossEmployer liabilityPre-existing conditionReimbursement proceduresDate of disablementAudiometric examinationAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationFord Motor Company
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Edwin G. v. Patricia E.

The Family Court erred in dismissing the mother's supplemental petition for a change in custody without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The orders from December 19, 1991, and May 13, 1993, which awarded custody of Jillian to the father and dismissed the mother's petition, were based solely on a therapist's letter, neglecting the child's wishes and the Law Guardian's recommendation. The appellate court unanimously reversed these decisions, reinstated the supplemental petition, and remanded the case for further proceedings before a different judge. The court mandated the appointment of an independent professional for family interviews and home environment investigation, followed by a full evidentiary hearing to determine Jillian's best interests.

Child CustodyFamily LawAppellate ReviewEvidentiary HearingRemandBest Interests of the ChildLaw Guardian RecommendationTherapist's ReportJudicial DiscretionFamily Court Act Article 6
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 2,704 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