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. ADJ10823453
Regular
Feb 15, 2018

MATTHEW GLASER vs. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order, but rather an interlocutory procedural decision regarding joinder. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, an extraordinary remedy, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found no grounds to grant either extraordinary measure.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONPETITION FOR REMOVALFINAL ORDERSUBSTANTIVE RIGHT OR LIABILITYTHRESHOLD ISSUEINTERLOCUTORY DECISIONSINTERMEDIATE PROCEDURAL ISSUEEXTRAORDINARY REMEDYSUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE
References
6
Case No. ADJ9361055
Regular
Dec 16, 2014

CODY GLEASON vs. MEASUREMENT DRIVEN REHABILITATION, AMTRUST

This case, Cody Gleason v. Measurement Driven Rehabilitation; Amtrust, resulted in the dismissal of the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the petition was not timely-filed. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimely-filedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationDismissedADJ9361055Measurement Driven RehabilitationAmtrustSan Diego District Office
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pizer v. Trade Union Service, Inc.

The plaintiff, as president of a labor union, initiated an action seeking to obtain a roster of the union membership from an independent trade newspaper. The defendant, currently possessing the list, was instructed by the union's secretary-treasurer not to release it to the plaintiff due to an internal union dispute concerning the plaintiff's authority and alleged personal use of the list. The defendant's contract with the union did not explicitly provide for such delivery. The Special Term had previously granted a temporary injunction compelling the defendant to surrender the list. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that a mandatory injunction pendente lite is an extraordinary measure justified only in unusual situations to maintain the status quo, which was not the case here given the sharp factual dispute. The court denied the motion and emphasized the need for a speedy plenary trial.

Labor Union DisputeTemporary InjunctionMandatory InjunctionPendente LiteTrade NewspaperMembership RosterUnion FactionsAuthority DisputeAppellate DivisionReversal
References
2
Case No. ADJ8222509
Regular
May 12, 2015

SARAI CRUZ CANSECO vs. NEW DESSERTS, INC., WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether an employee's psychiatric injury claim is barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which typically requires six months of employment, unless the injury resulted from a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition." The applicant, employed for less than six months, injured her wrist and ankle when a bakery cart collapsed. The majority affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the cart's collapse constituted a sudden and extraordinary event that did not bar the psychiatric claim. The dissenting commissioner argued the collapse was an unforeseen accident but not extraordinary enough to bypass the six-month rule, differentiating it from truly sudden and extraordinary events.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix-month employment rulebakery cart collapseindustrial injurycompensable consequenceroutine employment eventoccupational hazardno-fault system
References
3
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04584 [232 AD3d 209]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2024

Snyder v. AFCO Avports Mgt., LLC

This case concerns a trip-and-fall accident at Stewart International Airport, where plaintiff Kathy Snyder sustained injuries due to an alleged sidewalk defect. Defendants AFCO Avports Management, LLC, and Port Authority of New York & New Jersey moved for summary judgment, asserting the defect was trivial as a matter of law. The Appellate Division, Second Department, addressed key questions regarding the requirement of objective measurements for triviality, the examination of photographic evidence, and the admissibility of human factors expert opinions lacking such measurements. The court held that objective measurements are not a per se requirement, but defendants in this instance failed to meet their prima facie burden. The human factors expert's opinion was deemed conclusory and speculative due to the absence of objective measurements or a reasonably inferable estimate of the defect. Consequently, the lower court's order granting summary judgment to the defendants was reversed, and the motion was denied.

Trip and fallSidewalk defectSummary judgment appealTrivial defect doctrinePhotographic evidenceObjective measurementsHuman factors expert testimonyExpert opinion admissibilityPrima facie burdenAppellate review
References
35
Case No. ADJ6754663
Regular
Jun 21, 2010

RUBEN CASTILLO vs. J. JOHNSON & COMPANY, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant injured within six months of employment, raising a claim for psychiatric injury. Labor Code Section 3208.3(d) generally bars such claims unless the injury results from a "sudden and extraordinary" employment condition. The Appeals Board, in a majority decision, found the applicant's injury from a backhoe bucket was not extraordinary, thus reversing the WCJ's finding and barring the psychiatric claim. A dissenting opinion argued that being struck by a backhoe bucket is not a regular or routine incident and should qualify as a sudden and extraordinary event.

Labor Code Section 3208.3(d)sudden and extraordinary employment conditionpsychiatric injurysix-month employment rulereconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJReport and Recommendationbackhoe bucketworkplace violence
References
4
Case No. ADJ2582936
Regular
May 20, 2011

MAYRA ENRIQUEZ vs. NOUVEUR DESIGN, INC., EMPLOYER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's decision to deny compensation for the applicant's claimed psychiatric injury. Applicant, employed for less than six months, argued her injury resulted from a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition." The Board found that catching her hand in a machine was a foreseeable, ordinary risk of her job, not an extraordinary event. Therefore, Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which requires six months of employment for psychiatric injury claims unless caused by an extraordinary condition, barred recovery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3208.3(d)extraordinary employment conditionpsychiatric injurysix-month employment requirementsudden and extraordinaryregular and routinemachine operatorindustrial injurypetition for reconsideration
References
5
Case No. CV-23-1451
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2024

Matter of Amato v. Patchogue Supermarkets LLC

Domenico Amato, a claimant, sustained work-related injuries to his bilateral shoulders and biceps in May 2019, leading to two arthroscopic surgeries. Following these, medical evaluations for permanency by two orthopedic specialists, Frank Hudak and Lee Kupersmith, yielded differing schedule loss of use (SLU) percentages for Amato's arms. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found a bilateral 42.5% SLU. However, the Workers' Compensation Board subsequently rejected both physicians' permanency opinions, deeming them unreliable due to inconsistent range of motion (ROM) measurements. Instead, the Board relied on earlier ROM measurements from Dr. Kupersmith, taken before Amato reached maximum medical improvement (MMI), to determine a 20% SLU for each arm. Amato appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the Board's decision, finding that it was improper for the Board to determine SLU percentages based on premature medical reports that did not confirm MMI or adhere to proper ROM measurement guidelines. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further consideration.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseMaximum Medical ImprovementRange of MotionAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentMedical EvidenceBoard ReviewRemittalOrthopedic Surgery
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. ADJ7186887
Regular
Dec 01, 2017

RICHARD GALAN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRC, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STATE EMPLOYEES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Richard Galan's Petition for Removal in case ADJ7186887. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will occur, and reconsideration would be inadequate. The WCAB found that Galan failed to demonstrate these extraordinary circumstances based on the administrative law judge's analysis of the arguments. Therefore, the petition was denied, affirming the standard that removal is rarely granted.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportExtraordinary RemedyFinal Decision
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 904 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