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. ADJ9328357
Regular
Feb 02, 2017

KAREN SCHNEIDER vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS, COALINGA STATE HOSPITAL, legally uninsured, administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Karen Schneider's petition for reconsideration in case ADJ9328357. The Board adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), finding no good reason to disregard the opinion of the agreed medical evaluator. The WCJ had properly relied on the AME's expertise and neutrality. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied based on the record and the WCJ's report.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMEWCJCoalinga State Hospitallegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance Funddenying reconsiderationPower v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Joselyn D. v. Oscar O.

Oscar O. died before the birth of his child with Joselyn D., prompting a paternity petition. Family Court Act § 518 seemingly mandated abatement of the petition upon the father's death. However, the court interpreted the statute in a gender-neutral manner to defeat abatement, citing constitutional equal protection concerns. The court concluded that a gender-neutral reading better serves the legislative intent of expanding paternity proceeding opportunities and eliminating distinctions between marital and non-marital children. A finding of paternity was made based on clear and convincing evidence. The court also urged the Legislature to amend FCA § 518 to be explicitly gender-neutral.

PaternityGender NeutralityEqual ProtectionStatutory ConstructionAbatement of ActionFamily LawConstitutional LawNon-marital Children's RightsStatutory InterpretationJudicial Activism
References
18
Case No. ADJ7830020
Regular
Aug 03, 2015

Jodi Hefner vs. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF VENTURA, MARKEL SERVICES

Applicant sought removal to disqualify an Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) due to alleged bias and lack of expertise, and to challenge the defendant's use of multiple attorneys at depositions. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCJ's report, adopted by the Board, found the AME's conduct and statements did not demonstrate bias or a lack of expertise. Issues regarding the defendant's attorneys can be addressed through future protective orders.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Disqualification of AMEUnethical ConductBiasMedical ExpertisePre-trial ConferenceWCJ OrderIrreparable HarmSignificant Prejudice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Mancini

The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed a judgment convicting the defendant of robbery in the first degree, sentencing him as a second violent felony offender. The Court specifically affirmed the ruling from a Batson hearing where the prosecution provided race-neutral explanations for exercising peremptory challenges during jury selection. The prosecutor's criteria for juror selection were based on age, marital status, education level, and profession (avoiding teachers due to personal negative experiences). The Court found the explanations race-neutral and that the defense failed to demonstrate pretext, also recalling and vacating a prior order.

Jury SelectionBatson ChallengePeremptory ChallengesRace-Neutral ExplanationRobberyAppellate ReviewConviction AffirmedSecond Violent Felony OffenderVoir Dire
References
11
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03532
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2019

People v. Teran

This is an appeal from a judgment convicting Raymond Teran of criminal sale of a controlled substance. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgment, finding the verdict was supported by the weight of the evidence, including both personal sales and accessorial liability. The court also upheld the denial of the defendant's Batson application, determining that the prosecutor provided valid race-neutral reasons for peremptory challenges. Additionally, the defendant's Brady arguments regarding disclosure of police witness civil cases were deemed unavailing due to timely and extensive disclosures. A concurring opinion, however, expressed reservations about the plausibility of some race-neutral reasons provided for the peremptory challenges.

Criminal LawControlled SubstancesDrug OffensesJury TrialVerdict WeightAccessorial LiabilityBatson ClaimPeremptory ChallengesRacial DiscriminationBrady Violation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bennett

The defendant appealed a Supreme Court judgment in Kings County, where he was convicted of murder and weapon possession. The appellate court had previously remitted the case to examine the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges during jury selection. While most of the prosecutor's explanations for striking potential jurors were deemed race-neutral, three African-American women were challenged for reasons found to be pretextual and discriminatory. These included disparate treatment regarding attire, a challenge based on a 'liberal' profession without further inquiry, and a challenge to a social worker that lacked a case-specific relation. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial, citing insufficient race-neutral explanations for the challenges.

Racial DiscriminationPeremptory ChallengesJury SelectionBatson ChallengeRace-Neutral ExplanationsPretextual ReasonsDisparate TreatmentAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureMurder Second Degree
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Wint

This case involves an appeal from a judgment convicting the defendant, Wint, of attempted murder, assault, and criminal possession of a weapon. Previously, the case was remanded for a Batson hearing to assess the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for peremptory challenges. Following the hearing, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's Batson objection. The appellate court reviewed the prosecutor's explanations for challenging five African-American prospective jurors, including reasons related to 'non-relation' with a son, difficulty hearing, failure to report a robbery, familiarity with the crime location, employment as social workers, and peculiar appearance. The court found that the explanations were facially race-neutral and that the defendant failed to demonstrate pretext for discrimination. Consequently, the conviction was unanimously affirmed.

Batson challengeperemptory strikesjury selectionracial discriminationappellate reviewattempted murderassaultweapon possessionsecond felony offenderrace-neutral explanations
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arbitration between National Union Fire Insurance v. Personnel Plus, Inc.

Petitioner National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh sought judicial appointment of a neutral umpire in an arbitration dispute with respondents Personnel Plus, Inc. and Great Dane Management Services, Inc. concerning a workers' compensation liability insurance program. The respondents challenged the arbitration on grounds that Great Dane was a non-signatory, the chosen court lacked jurisdiction, and the underlying payment agreement was unenforceable under California law. The District Court, finding agency applied to Great Dane and upholding the forum-selection clause, granted National Union's petition, compelling arbitration for all claims and appointing Kevin Martin as the neutral umpire. The court also ruled that the enforceability of the payment agreement should be decided by the arbitral panel.

Arbitration AgreementUmpire AppointmentWorkers' Compensation LiabilityContractual DisputeForum Selection ClauseAgency RelationshipFederal Arbitration ActMcCarran-Ferguson ActArbitrabilityJudicial Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Silberberg v. Board of Elections

This is an action seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of New York Election Law § 17-130(10), which prohibits voters from displaying their marked ballots. The plaintiffs, who wish to take and share "ballot selfies," argue that the law infringes upon their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The court considered the standing of the plaintiffs, the standards for a preliminary injunction, and the likelihood of success on the merits, including whether polling places constitute a public forum, the law's viewpoint neutrality, and its reasonableness in protecting election integrity against voter bribery and intimidation. The court ultimately denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the law is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral regulation in a nonpublic forum, and that granting an injunction so close to the election would disrupt the electoral process and not serve the public interest.

Election LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechBallot SelfiesVoter IntimidationVote BuyingPreliminary InjunctionPublic Forum DoctrineViewpoint NeutralityReasonableness Standard
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Inc. v. New York State Office of Mental Health

Petitioners, the New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Inc. (NYSCOPBA) and Richard McPhillips, challenged an emergency regulation by the Office of Mental Health (OMH) that mandated unvaccinated personnel in psychiatric facilities wear face masks during influenza season, arguing it was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court dismissed their application, leading to this appeal. The Appellate Division determined the case was not moot, as the subsequently adopted permanent regulation presented the same alleged infirmities. On the merits, the court upheld the regulation, granting OMH significant judicial deference due to its expertise. OMH's decision was based on Department of Health expertise, its own assessment of patient vulnerability, and the efficacy of masks. The court found that OMH adequately addressed concerns regarding communication and role modeling, and reasonably justified exemptions for visitors and attorneys. The judgment dismissing the petition was affirmed.

RegulationsPublic HealthMandatory MasksInfluenzaPsychiatric FacilitiesWorkers' RightsAdministrative LawJudicial DeferenceMootnessCPLR Article 78
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 146 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