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

People v. Yates

The People moved for a Frye hearing to determine the scientific acceptance of expert testimony on male rape trauma syndrome, which the defendant sought to introduce. The defendant, charged with grand larceny, claimed he was sexually assaulted and that the syndrome explained his failure to report the incident. The court reviewed existing New York case law on rape trauma syndrome for female and child victims, and scientific literature on male sexual assault. It found that male victims exhibit similar post-traumatic stress symptoms to female victims, concluding that male rape trauma syndrome is generally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the court denied the People's motion, ruling that a Frye hearing was not necessary.

Male Rape Trauma SyndromeFrye HearingExpert Testimony AdmissibilitySexual AssaultPosttraumatic Stress DisorderScientific AcceptanceGender Neutral LawEvidence LawCriminal ProcedureSodomy
References
26
Case No. ADJ7618189
Regular
Nov 26, 2012

RUBEN OROZCO vs. EXACT STAFF, INC.; TOWER/NSM INSUREX, Administered by YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP

This case involves lien claimants Anderson Chiropractic and Santana Lopez seeking reconsideration of an order disallowing their liens. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration because a crucial exhibit, Exhibit 6, was incomplete in the record. Lien claimants are ordered to file a complete copy of Exhibit 6 within 10 days to allow the Board to properly review the case. This action is necessary for the Board to study the facts and applicable law concerning the disallowed liens.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantsFindings and OrdersDisallowed liensExhibit 6Administrative law judgeWCJSupplemental pleadingSan Francisco
References
0
Case No. ADJ7934540 ADJ7934544
Regular
Jan 13, 2020

JUAN LOPEZ vs. JOHN A. VAN LEEUWEN DAIRY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, IMPERIUM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to lien claimants after a WCJ excluded their exhibits due to failure to submit exhibit lists with the Pretrial Conference Statement (PTCS). The WCAB found that lien claimants demonstrated good cause, citing excusable neglect by their representative and the constitutional mandate for substantial justice and due process. Therefore, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's order and returned the matter for further proceedings, allowing lien claimants to amend the PTCS with their exhibit lists. This decision prioritizes a decision on the merits over procedural omissions in this case.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and Orderslien claimantsWCJPretrial Conference Statement (PTCS)excusable neglectFox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.substantial justicedue process
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pardo v. Bialystoker Center & Bikur Cholim, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order, dated September 12, 2002, and the second, dated February 27, 2003, had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and precluded him from asserting Labor Law claims at trial concerning the alleged failure of defendants to secure a scaffold with "tie-ins." The appellate court modified the lower court's orders, vacating the provisions that barred the plaintiff from offering evidence regarding the defendants' alleged failure to use tie-ins. The court affirmed the orders in all other respects. It emphasized that under Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that injuries were partially attributable to the defendant's failure to implement statutorily mandated safety measures to protect against elevation-related risks. The court also clarified that contributory negligence is irrelevant in such cases. The plaintiff's belated request to plead a violation of Industrial Code § 23-5.8 (g) was denied due to an unequivocal waiver of his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentElevation HazardsProximate CauseContributory NegligenceTie-insWorkplace AccidentStatutory Safety MeasuresAppellate Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2006

Laura I.M. v. Hillside Children's Center

The case concerns infant plaintiffs who were sexually abused by Sergey Reznikov, a patient at Hillside Children’s Center, during unaccompanied weekend home visits. Reznikov had a documented history of pedophilia, for which he was admitted to Hillside. Plaintiffs sued Hillside, asserting liability for negligent failure to exercise professional judgment in allowing these home visits without properly assessing supervision capabilities. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment on liability for the plaintiffs, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The affirmation was based on Hillside's failure to discuss supervision with Reznikov's mother and a social worker's omission to inform a psychiatrist of critical information regarding Reznikov's contact with the victims.

negligenceprofessional judgmentchild sexual abusetreatment facility liabilitypedophiliasupervision failurehome visit policysummary judgmentappellate affirmancephysician-patient privilege
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1990

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Valenzano

The Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund initiated an action against Marcello Valenzano, doing business as ABC Contracting Co., for unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums. The defendant failed to comply with discovery requests, leading to an order conditionally striking his answer and later, a default judgment. Defendant's pro se motion to vacate the default judgment, asserting non-receipt of documents and partial compliance, was denied by the IAS court. The court found service proper and noted the defendant's failure to demonstrate a meritorious defense. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding the lower court acted within its discretion to strike the answer for willful failure to comply with discovery, considering the lack of reasonable excuse and meritorious defense.

Default JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsFailure to ComplyWorkers' Compensation InsuranceVacate JudgmentMeritorious DefenseService of ProcessAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureSupreme Court
References
3
Case No. ADJ8067245
Regular
Apr 23, 2015

ISABEL DIMAS vs. CLIFTON'S CAFETERIA, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered By ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Preferred Scan, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision to dismiss Preferred Scan's lien for failing to meet its burden of proof. Specific grounds for dismissal included failure to establish reasonableness and necessity of charges, improper service of exhibits, and inadequate evidence preparation. While the lien claimant's services could have been considered legitimate medical-legal costs for a contested claim, the other evidentiary failures were sufficient to uphold the lien's dismissal.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationWCJFindings and OrdersDismissed lienBurden of proofAOE/COEMedical-legal costsContested claimReasonableness and necessity
References
0
Case No. ADJ9267687
Regular
Apr 02, 2019

NORMA DE JESUS ZARAGOZA vs. FRANCHISE INVESTMENT CORPORATION dba ROUND TABLE PIZZA and TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE/FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board imposed a $500 sanction against applicant's attorney, Peter T. Nguyen, and his law firm. This sanction arose from attaching over 325 pages of exhibits, many not in evidence, to a petition, violating WCAB rules regarding page limits and proper exhibit submission. The attorney's claim of inexperience was rejected, as attorneys are responsible for knowing and adhering to procedural rules, and zealous advocacy does not excuse rule violations. The Board also noted the attorney's failure to adequately cite the trial record in support of his petition.

WCABRemovalSanctionsLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561WCAB Rule 10842WCAB Rule 10845WCAB Rule 10856Petition for ReconsiderationExhibits
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1989

Assante v. City of New York

Salvatore Assante, a New York City Department of Sanitation worker, sustained injuries in 1982 when his vehicle struck an obstruction. The plaintiffs initially alleged vehicle safety device failure and the City of New York's failure to maintain a safe road. During the 1988 trial, plaintiffs attempted to introduce a new "second collision" theory, claiming injuries were exacerbated by the absence of a seat belt, and moved to amend their pleadings. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied this motion due to prejudicial delay. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the amendment, as the defendants would have been prejudiced by the late introduction of a new factual theory.

Personal InjuryJury VerdictPleadings AmendmentNew Theory of LiabilityPrejudiceDiscretion of CourtAppellate ReviewCPLR 3025(c)Safety DevicesSeat Belt
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Samuel DD.

Respondent appealed a Family Court order from Albany County, entered April 20, 2010, which adjudicated her child, Samuel DD., neglected under Family Ct Act article 10. The neglect finding stemmed from respondent's failure to provide necessary medical treatment for the child's severe behavioral and mental health issues, including ADHD and suspected bipolar disorder, along with educational neglect and respondent’s own mental health problems. The child exhibited extreme and dangerous behaviors at school, leading to his dismissal. Despite medical recommendations for medication and psychiatric evaluation, the respondent refused to administer treatment, attend follow-up appointments, or cooperate with service plans. The appellate court affirmed the neglect finding, concluding that the record provided ample evidence of respondent's unreasonable failure to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing for the child's welfare.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActParental RightsMedical Treatment RefusalChild Mental HealthADHDBehavioral IssuesEducational NeglectAppellate ReviewParental Care Standards
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 3,527 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