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. ADJ8759846
Regular
Jun 05, 2025

Manuel Agurto vs. Peterberg Construction, Inc.; Praetorian Insurance Work Comp Program

Applicant, Manuel Agurto, seeks reconsideration of the February 4, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) where the WCJ found injury to his psyche and determined his average weekly wage. The WCJ's Opinion on Decision (OOD) also included findings of injury to other body parts and awarded future medical for some. Applicant challenged various interlocutory issues. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration to rescind the F&O and substitute it with a Findings, Award, and Order (FA&O) to reflect all of the WCJ's findings, awards, and orders, including additional body parts injured and an award of future medical, while deferring other issues for further development of the record. The Board admonished applicant's attorneys for frivolous conduct.

AOE/COEpsyche injuryAMEPQMEoccupational group 480Labor Code 4453(c)(4)petition for reconsiderationfinal orderinterlocutory issuesremoval standard
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2014

In Re the Arbitration Between Delaney Group, Inc. & Holmgren Enterprises, Inc.

This case involves cross-appeals from a Supreme Court order concerning an arbitration dispute between a prime contractor (Petitioner) and a subcontractor (Respondent) on a public work project. Respondent initially sought additional payment via arbitration, leading to an award that included credits for Petitioner. After a request for clarification, the arbitrator issued a modified award removing these credits. Petitioner then sought to vacate both the original and modified awards, while Respondent sought to confirm the modified award. The Supreme Court vacated both arbitration awards and remanded the case for a rehearing, finding that the arbitrator exceeded authority in modifying the award and imperfectly executed powers in the original award by failing to address a key stipulation. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, upholding the vacatur and remand of both arbitration awards.

ArbitrationContract DisputePublic Work ProjectSubcontractorPrime ContractorCross AppealsVacatur of AwardRemandArbitrator AuthorityCPLR 7511
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shimon v. Wong

Plaintiff Marilyn Shimon was awarded $75,000 for past pain and suffering and $25,000 for future pain and suffering in a personal injury action against defendant Dick J. Wong. The defendant conceded liability but moved to strike the award for future pain and suffering, arguing inconsistency with jury findings of no permanent or significant bodily limitation. Presiding District Judge Spatt reconciled the jury's verdict, interpreting the award as compensation for a non-permanent injury that prevented the plaintiff from performing usual activities for 90 out of 180 days, which could lead to future pain for a finite period. The court reviewed relevant precedents but distinguished them based on the specific medical and testimonial evidence presented by Shimon, including disc herniation and chronic pain. Ultimately, the court denied the defendant's motion, finding the jury's responses and damage award consistent with the evidence and ordered judgment to be entered according to the verdict.

Personal injuryJury verdictFuture pain and sufferingSerious injury thresholdNew York Insurance LawMotion to strikeVerdict consistencyEvidentiary supportMedical testimonyDisc herniation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2003

At & T Corp. v. Tyco Telecommunications (U.S.) Inc.

This order from District Judge Marrero confirms an arbitration award concerning a dispute between AT & T Corp. (as co-maintenance authority for TAT-10 submarine cable owners) and Tyco Telecommunications (U.S.) Inc. Tyco had previously admitted liability for severing the TAT-10 cable in 1998, leading to an arbitration panel awarding the Cable Owners $5,798,075.83 plus interest. Tyco sought to vacate this award, challenging the Panel's legal interpretations regarding a private cause of action under the Cable Convention, the common ownership doctrine, and the inclusion of annual restoration costs as damages. The Court reviewed Tyco's claims for legal error and insufficient discovery, applying a rigorous standard for disturbing arbitration awards. Ultimately, the judge rejected all of Tyco's arguments, finding no manifest disregard of the law or denial of fundamental fairness by the arbitration panel, and confirmed the award in its entirety.

ArbitrationSubmarine CableTelecommunicationsDamagesManifest Disregard of LawStandard of ReviewCable ConventionCable ActLoss of UseRestoration Costs
References
21
Case No. ADJ7736993, ADJ8633868
Regular
Jul 29, 2016

HUGO IBARRA vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award. The applicant's argument focused on alleged errors in the WCJ's Opinion on Decision regarding advances, not the Findings and Award itself. The Board clarified that reconsideration is only available for final orders determining substantive rights or liabilities. Since the Findings and Award did not address advances or offsets, and no final order on that issue exists, the petition was denied. Any dispute regarding advances must first be litigated at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardPermanent DisabilityDisability IndemnityAttorney's FeesOpinion on DecisionAdvancesOffsetsTrial Level
References
3
Case No. ADJ6780734
Regular
Sep 08, 2011

Venessa Vielma vs. The Pape Group, Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the WCJ issued an Order Approving Compromise and Release one day after the jurisdictional 15-day period to act on the applicant's petition for reconsideration had expired. This untimely action rendered the WCJ's Order and the prior Findings, Award and Order without jurisdiction. Therefore, the Board rescinded both the Order Approving Compromise and Release and the Findings Award and Order. The matter is returned to the trial level for further review of the settlement by the WCJ.

Writ of MandatePetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseFindings Award and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1989

Lange v. Sartorius, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which affirmed an arbitrators’ award in favor of the petitioner and denied the respondents’ cross-motion to vacate it. The dispute arose from the petitioner's termination of employment, which was submitted to arbitration as per their employment agreements. The arbitrators found that the respondents had not complied with the agreements and rendered a monetary award to the petitioner, considering his sudden departure. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing that arbitration awards are given deference and are not subject to judicial review for merely erroneous factual findings unless completely irrational. Since the arbitrators' award was not irrational, the Supreme Court's order was affirmed.

Arbitration AwardConfirmation of AwardVacatur of AwardEmployment DisputeJudicial Review of ArbitrationDeference to ArbitratorsIrrational FindingsNew York LawFederal LawAppellate Affirmation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration bet. New Hampshire Insurance & Utilities Mutual Insurance

This case involves an appeal from an order that partially granted a petitioner's application to vacate an arbitration award. The underlying dispute arose from an accident involving a truck crane that injured Grady McClaney, an employee of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, who subsequently received workers' compensation benefits from the respondent carrier. McClaney settled a personal injury action against multiple parties for over $4 million, with Niagara Mohawk waiving its compensation lien as part of the settlement. Subsequently, the respondent initiated a loss transfer arbitration to recoup $50,000 in compensation benefits from the petitioner, Gallagher’s no-fault carrier, citing Insurance Law § 5105 (b) and Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (1-a). The arbitration panel ruled in favor of the respondent, but the Supreme Court remanded the matter due to procedural defects. On appeal, the court reversed the Supreme Court's order, confirmed the arbitration award, and dismissed the petition, finding the panel's decision rational and the procedural defects non-prejudicial.

Arbitration AwardWorkers' CompensationLoss TransferNo-Fault InsuranceLien WaiverPersonal Injury SettlementAppellate ReviewProcedural DefectsInsurance LawCPLR 7511
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of I-Conscious R. (George S.)

This case involves an appeal concerning a Family Court order that determined a respondent father abused and neglected his daughter and derivatively abused and neglected his son. The appellate court affirmed the fact-finding order, concluding that the petitioner presented a preponderance of evidence, including medical findings of genital herpes in the child, indicative of sexual abuse. The court upheld the neglect finding due to the father's failure to secure timely medical care for his daughter's severe symptoms. Additionally, the respondent's arguments regarding the suggestiveness of interviews, the testimony of his expert witness, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were all rejected by the court. An appeal against a separate order of protection was dismissed due to abandonment.

Child AbuseChild NeglectSexual AbuseGenital HerpesMedical EvidenceFamily Court ProceedingsSufficiency of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate Review
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 31,786 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