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

In re Thea T.

The Suffolk County Attorney's Office, on behalf of Suffolk County Child Protective Services, filed an application seeking an order to direct the Law Guardian to permit a third interview of 11-year-old Thea T., who alleges sexual abuse by her father. The County also sought the Law Guardian's cooperation with pretrial preparation. The Law Guardian opposed the request for a third interview, citing potential harm to the child, who had already undergone two previous interviews. The court applied a two-prong test, weighing the County's asserted need against the potential harm to the child. Finding the County's justification for a third interview conclusory and lacking an articulable basis, and balancing this against the potential for intimidation and embarrassment to the child, the court denied both applications.

Child Protective ServicesChild InterviewLaw Guardian RoleFamily Court ActDiscovery DisputePretrial PreparationChild WelfareVulnerable WitnessEvidentiary StandardBalancing Test
References
3
Case No. ADJ7257085
Regular
Apr 13, 2012

RAMON MACIAS vs. SOUTHWIRE CORPORATION, OLD REPUBLIC RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns an applicant claiming back, hip, and ankle injury from May 1, 2009, who reported it during an exit interview on March 22, 2010, after receiving notice of termination. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the trial judge's findings based on parties' stipulations that the injury was reported post-termination without notice to the employer beforehand. The Board found that Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) bars claims filed after notice of termination unless specific exceptions apply, and the applicant's reported injury date predates termination notice. The issue of potential exceptions under section 3600(a)(10) remains reserved for further proceedings.

Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-termination claimExit interviewActual notice of terminationStipulationsWCABReconsideration deniedPreponderance of evidenceExceptions to denialCompensable injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of O'Dell v. Consolidated Edison

Claimant underwent lung surgery in 1995 and retired from Consolidated Edison in November 1996, citing breathing difficulties. In October 1999, he was diagnosed with work-related pulmonary asbestosis and asbestos-related pleural disease. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found his disability work-related and his retirement causally linked. However, the full Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, ruling his retirement was not due to his causally related disability. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that claimant's retirement was voluntary, based on his retirement letter and exit interview notes that made no mention of health issues.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityAsbestosisVoluntary RetirementCausationMedical EvidenceLabor Market WithdrawalAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceLung Disease
References
2
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. ADJ8580851
Regular
Feb 26, 2018

JOSE RODRIGUEZ (Dec'd), MARCELA RODRIGUEZ (Wife), ANDREA RODRIGUEZ (Daughter), ISAAC ESPINOZA (Grandson) vs. KENAN ADVANTAGE GROUP, INC., AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's order requiring the agreed medical evaluator (AME) to interview the deceased employee's spouse and daughter to assess causation for his suicide. The Board found the employer acted in bad faith by obstructing these interviews, warranting sanctions, attorney's fees, and costs. The employer's arguments against the interviews and sanctions lacked legal merit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAgreed Medical EvaluatorSuicideCompensable ConsequenceLabor Code Section 4062.3SanctionsBad FaithDiscovery ObstructionReconsiderationPetition for Reconsideration
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jamie EE.

Petitioner appealed the dismissal of an application to adjudicate Jamie EE. and her brothers as abused and neglected children by respondent. The Family Court dismissed the case for lack of corroboration of the child's out-of-court statements and denied the Law Guardian's request for an in camera interview with the child. The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's order, holding that an in camera interview could provide the necessary corroboration for the child's statements and should have been allowed. The matter was remitted to Family Court to conduct the interview and receive additional relevant evidence from the Law Guardian.

Child AbuseChild NeglectCorroboration of Child StatementsHearsay EvidenceIn Camera TestimonyFamily Court ActAppellate ReversalRemandLaw Guardian RoleChild Welfare Proceedings
References
9
Case No. ADJ6873149
Regular
May 29, 2012

MIRIAN AVILA vs. CANADIAN AMERICAN OIL COMPANY, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) improperly interviewed non-party witnesses without the defendant's knowledge or consent, violating Labor Code section 4062.3 and AD Rule 35. The Appeals Board rescinded its order granting reconsideration, affirming the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision that these collateral interviews did not constitute prohibited ex parte communication. The majority held that the statute applies to communications between parties or their representatives and the QME, not to a QME's discussions with non-parties. Conversely, the dissenting commissioner argued that such interviews were impermissible under the spirit and letter of the law, constituting a denial of due process and advocating for the QME's report to be stricken.

PQMEnonparty witnessesex parte communicationLabor Code section 4062.3AD Rule 35oral interviewspetition to strikenew panelsubstantial evidencedue process
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

K.D. ex rel. Duncan v. White Plains School District

Plaintiffs K.D. (a developmentally disabled adult) and her mother Kerry Kelly Duncan sued the White Plains School District (WPSD) and several individual defendants. The claims stemmed from an incident where K.D. was interviewed by police at school, without parental consent, after reporting an alleged assault by her brother. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, conspiracy, supervisory liability, gross negligence, and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all federal claims, including § 1983 and § 1985 conspiracy claims, Fourth Amendment claims (due to qualified immunity and lack of clearly established rights for in-school interviews of adults), and procedural/substantive due process claims (as K.D. was an adult and the interview did not constitute a deprivation of custody or conscience-shocking conduct). Remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice due to the absence of federal claims.

Fourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessQualified ImmunityMotion to DismissSchool InterviewChild Abuse InvestigationSection 1983Section 1985Conspiracy
References
97
Case No. ADJ9198868
Regular
Aug 19, 2014

CURTIS GREEN vs. JBS USA, INC., AMRICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Curtis Green's Petition for Reconsideration. Green claimed injury from a fall during an interview for a Human Resource Generalist position with JBS USA, Inc. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that Green was not an employee at the time of the interview, as no employment contract or relationship existed. Therefore, his injury did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment, and he was awarded nothing.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationHuman Resource Generalistfall from chairtryoutemployment relationshipprospective employerbusiness visitorcontractual relationshippreponderance of the evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Verderber v. Roechling Steel, Inc.

The case involves a review of an investigation by the division’s human rights specialist into an allegation of sexual discrimination. The investigation included reviewing the complaint, interviewing the complainant, examining affidavits from other employees (complainant's superior and co-worker), and reviewing communications from both respondent's and complainant's attorneys, as well as an interview with a former part-time employee. The court determined that the division did not abuse its discretion during the investigation, and the investigative process provided a reasonable basis for an administrative determination. Ultimately, the court concluded that the division's finding of no probable cause was supported by substantial evidence.

Sexual DiscriminationHuman RightsAdministrative ReviewProbable CauseInvestigationAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionSubstantial Evidence
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 108 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