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 13, 1973

Vic's Auto Body & Repair v. Granito

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of a special exception permit for an automobile body and fender repair shop. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, annulled the denial and directed the issuance of the permit. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the appellants' original determination and dismissing the petition. The appellate court found that the appellants' denial was supported by evidence of potential noise, fumes, visual blight from wrecked cars, the residential nature of the vicinity, and the severe negative impact on a neighboring medical practice. The court concluded that the proposed use failed to meet the standards for a special exception permit.

Special Exception PermitZoning DenialAutomobile Repair ShopNuisanceResidential CharacterMedical Practice ImpactCPLR Article 78Abuse of Discretion ReviewProperty ValueAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caldaro v. Float No. 187

The libelant, employed as a stowman on Float No. 187, was injured due to the vessel's unseaworthy condition and subsequently filed a libel. This action follows a previous case where the libelant sued his employer, Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, for the same injuries. In that prior action, the complaint was dismissed, with Judge J. Edward Lumbard ruling that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy. Citing a similar precedent, the court in the present case sustained the respondent's exceptions to the libel, leading to its dismissal.

Seaman InjuryUnseaworthinessLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyAdmiralty LawMaritime LawLibelExceptionsCase DismissalFederal District Court
References
4
Case No. 533860
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Quinton Waters

Quinton Waters, a station agent, was injured in a bicycle accident while traveling to an overtime assignment. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially deemed the claim compensable under the 'special errand' exception. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, ruling that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment and did not fall under the 'outside employee' exception. The Appellate Division found that the Board failed to address the 'special errand' exception, which was the WCLJ's original basis for awarding benefits. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to determine the applicability of the special errand exception.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Errand ExceptionOutside Employee ExceptionScope of EmploymentTravel to Work InjuryOvertime AssignmentBicycle AccidentTraumatic Brain InjuryBoard ReversalAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grimmer v. Lord Day & Lord

This case is a class action brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) by former employees of the law firm Lord Day & Lord, Barrett Smith. The employees alleged that the firm violated the WARN Act by closing its offices without providing the required sixty days' advance notice. Lord Day asserted statutory exceptions, specifically the 'faltering company' and 'unforeseeable business circumstances' exceptions, as affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, contending that Lord Day's notice was insufficient as it merely recited the language of a statutory exception without providing a 'brief statement of the basis' for reducing the notice period. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that simply citing a statutory exception is inadequate and that specific factual basis is required, thus granting the motion and striking Lord Day's affirmative defenses.

WARN Actplant closingmass layoffnotice periodunforeseeable business circumstancesfaltering company exceptionaffirmative defensessummary judgmentstatutory interpretationemployee rights
References
2
Case No. ADJ10268949
Regular
Nov 23, 2016

ELOY DELA TORRE FERNANDEZ vs. MERCHANT'S LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision that barred the applicant's claim due to a post-termination filing defense. The applicant claimed exceptions to this defense, arguing he received pre-termination treatment and that his date of injury, under Labor Code § 5412, occurred after his termination. The WCAB found insufficient evidence to decide the pre-termination treatment exception and remanded the case to clarify the applicant's date of injury under § 5412, as this date's post-termination status would be an exception to the defense. The prior order was rescinded and the case returned for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-termination DefenseCumulative InjuryDate of InjurySection 5412Compensable DisabilityTrier of Fact
References
3
Case No. ADJ10052997
Regular
Mar 06, 2017

JESUS LLAMAS RUIZ vs. FLINTRIDGE RIDING CLUB, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an employer's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board finding that the applicant sustained work-related injuries. The employer argued the post-termination defense applied because no pre-termination medical records existed. However, the Board denied reconsideration, finding the applicant met an exception to the defense. This exception, under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)(D), applies when the date of injury, defined by disability and knowledge of employment causation, occurs after the termination date. The Board affirmed the applicant demonstrated this exception, making the lack of pre-termination medical records irrelevant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFlintridge Riding ClubState Compensation Insurance FundJesus Llamas RuizPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-Termination DefenseException (D)
References
0
Case No. ADJ18302905
Regular
Jul 25, 2025

CHRISTIAN CHAVEZ vs. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, STARR INDEMNITY AND LIABILITY COMPANY

Defendant sought reconsideration of a Findings and Order (F&O) issued on April 15, 2025, by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that the applicant, Christian Chavez, sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, and that this injury was not barred by the going and coming rule, based on the special risk exception. Defendant contended that there was no evidence to support the application of the special risk exception. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition, applicant's answer, and the WCJ's report, ultimately denying the petition for reconsideration and concurring with the WCJ's findings regarding the special risk exception.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardChristian ChavezJetBlue Airways CorporationStarr Indemnity and Liability CompanyAdjudication Number ADJ18302905Los Angeles District OfficePetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderArising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE)Going and coming rule
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. DiNapoli

The case concerns a petitioner seeking to excuse the notice requirement for a disability retirement claim. The petitioner argued that either a workers' compensation claim or a 'good cause' exception should apply. The court found that the workers' compensation claim was not filed within the statutory timeframe, and the Workers’ Compensation Board’s subsequent decision to excuse its untimeliness was not binding on the respondent. Regarding the good cause exception, the petitioner failed to notify the employer of the injury or disability within 30 days of the occurrence, as required by regulation, instead waiting a year. The court upheld the respondent's interpretation that the notice event is the occurrence of the disability, not its diagnosis. Consequently, substantial evidence supported the respondent’s denial of the good cause exception, and the petition was dismissed.

Disability RetirementWorkers' CompensationNotice RequirementGood Cause ExceptionTimelinessEmployer NotificationOccupational DisabilityAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewRetirement and Social Security Law
References
5
Case No. 8074/89
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Palazo

The defendant, charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance, moved to have her attorney present at her presentence interview with the Department of Probation. This request challenged the Department's Executive Policy and Procedure No. 20-2-83, which generally disallows counsel's presence during such interviews. The defendant argued the policy was unconstitutional and that exceptional circumstances, including her low education, non-English speaking status, emotional state, and spousal privilege concerns, warranted an exception. The court, presided over by Judge Norman George, denied the motion, upholding the constitutionality of the policy. The court reasoned that the presentence interview is a non-adversarial information-gathering stage and that New York's statutory scheme adequately ensures fundamental fairness without requiring counsel's presence at the interview itself, further concluding that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated.

Criminal ProcedureRight to CounselPresentence InterviewDepartment of Probation PolicyConstitutional LawSixth AmendmentSentencing StageExceptional CircumstancesSpousal PrivilegeDue Process
References
18
Case No. 189 AD3d 1841
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Dimaggio v. Mayrch Excavation Found.

Claimant Ottavio Dimaggio, an Italian-speaking carpenter, sustained a back injury in a 2014 accident, leading to a workers' compensation claim. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) classified him with a permanent partial disability and a 96% loss of wage-earning capacity. Dimaggio sought review from the Workers' Compensation Board, arguing for total disability, but his application was denied due to the Board's finding that his general exception to the WCLJ's oral findings did not meet the "specific objection or exception" requirement of 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (4) (v). The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, holding that counsel's repeated "noting an exception," viewed in context with Dimaggio's confusion, was sufficiently specific. The court concluded the Board abused its discretion in denying the application and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

Workers' Compensation BoardPermanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityApplication for ReviewSpecific ObjectionProcedural ComplianceAppellate DivisionAbuse of DiscretionRemittalOral Findings
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 720 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