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
Dec 15, 1993

Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Stokes

Mary Stokes was injured in a car accident caused by Russell Caldwell and Steven Schwartz. She settled with their insurer, Aetna Insurance Company, for the policy limit of $10,000. Stokes then sought underinsured motorist benefits from her own insurer, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, which provided $50,000 in coverage. Nationwide argued it was entitled to offset the $10,000 settlement and $2,100 in Workers’ Compensation benefits from Stokes's coverage. The Supreme Court initially allowed both offsets, limiting Stokes's recovery to $37,900. On appeal, the court ruled that the $10,000 tortfeasor settlement could not be offset against the underinsurance limits, but the Workers’ Compensation benefits could. Therefore, the order was modified to remove the $10,000 offset but affirmed regarding the Workers’ Compensation offset.

Underinsured motoristInsurance benefitsOffsetWorkers' Compensation benefitsAutomobile accidentArbitrationAppellate procedureStatutory interpretationInsurance LawCPLR
References
5
Case No. 26 NY3d 1074
Regular Panel Decision

Doctor Fred L. Pasternack v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings

Plaintiff Fred Pasternack, an airline pilot, sued LabCorp and ChoicePoint for negligence and fraud related to an alleged 'refusal to test' during a random drug screening. Pasternack claimed LabCorp's employee failed to follow 'shy bladder' procedures and inform him of the consequences of leaving, leading to the revocation of his airman certificates by the FAA. He also alleged fraud based on the employee's false statements to FAA investigators which the FAA relied upon. The New York Court of Appeals was asked to answer two certified questions from the Second Circuit: (1) whether federal drug testing regulations create a duty of care for labs under New York negligence law, and (2) whether third-party reliance can satisfy the reliance element of a New York fraud claim. The Court answered both questions in the negative, holding that only regulations implicating scientific integrity create a duty of care, and third-party reliance is insufficient for a fraud claim under New York law.

NegligenceFraudDuty of CareThird-Party RelianceDrug TestingFAA RegulationsDOT GuidelinesAirline PilotMedical Review OfficerAirman Certificates Revocation
References
36
Case No. ADJ8149660
Regular
Sep 19, 1943

Jeffrey Doty vs. Fred Stoke, dba Stoke Trust and Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend findings, concluding applicant Jeffrey Doty was an employee because he performed work requiring a contractor's license without possessing one. However, the Board affirmed the denial of benefits, agreeing with the WCJ that Doty failed to prove he worked the requisite 52 hours within the 90 days preceding his injury. This failure to meet the statutory threshold for residential employees excluded him from benefits. Therefore, Doty is not entitled to workers' compensation despite being deemed an employee.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFred StokeUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusContractor's LicenseLabor Code Section 2750.5Tree PruningResidential Dwelling Employee52-Hour Rule
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2002

Storms v. Dominican College of Blauvelt

The plaintiff, a laborer employed by Schaeffer Construction Co., fell 25 feet while dismantling scaffolding at a residence hall construction site for Dominican College of Blauvelt. The plaintiff asserted claims of negligence and Labor Law violations against Dominican College of Blauvelt and the general contractor, Fred L. Holt, Inc. The Supreme Court denied Holt's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to unresolved factual issues regarding proximate cause and safety measures. Holt's claim for indemnification against Schaeffer was also denied based on Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and the anti-subrogation rule. However, Dominican College of Blauvelt was granted summary judgment on its common-law and contractual indemnification claims against both Holt and Schaeffer, as there was no evidence Dominican directed or controlled the work's safety. Additionally, certain appeals by Holt and Schaeffer were dismissed.

Personal InjuryScaffolding AccidentLabor Law ViolationsIndemnificationSummary JudgmentSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityWorkers' Compensation LawAnti-Subrogation RuleAppellate Division
References
8
Case No. ADJ741196 (MON 0219371)
Regular
Sep 03, 2010

FRED CALHOUN vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

This is an Order from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying a Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB adopted the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) as the basis for denial. Therefore, the WCAB affirmed its prior decision, whatever that may have been, against Fred Calhoun and in favor of Ralphs Grocery Company.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRalphs Grocery CompanyPermissibly Self-InsuredOrder Denying ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJMichael Sullivan & Associates
References
0
Case No. ANA 0394295; ANA 0394296; AHM 070183; AHM 012471; AHM 070336
Regular
Sep 17, 2007

FRED NORWOOD vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's petition for reconsideration, rescinding a prior award. The Board held that Industrial Off Duty (IOD) benefits paid by the City of Los Angeles to Fred Norwood constitute temporary disability indemnity. Therefore, these IOD payments are subject to the 104-week limitation under Labor Code section 4656(c)(1), precluding further temporary disability indemnity if the limit has been met.

Industrial Injured on DutyIOD benefitstemporary disability indemnityLabor Code section 4656(c)(1)aggregate disability paymentscompensable weekstwo-year periodrescinded orderpanel decisionIndustrial Disability Leave
References
2
Case No. ADJ10239095
Regular
Apr 03, 2025

FRED DAVIS vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

Defendant, Southern California Edison, petitioned for reconsideration of the August 17, 2022 Findings of Fact, Award and Orders, which found applicant Fred Davis sustained a work-related low back, neck, and hypertension injury resulting in 76% permanent partial disability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration. Subsequently, the parties filed a Compromise and Release. Therefore, the Appeals Board rescinded the August 17, 2022 decision and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings to consider the Compromise and Release, without ruling on the merits of the reconsideration petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactAward and OrdersPermanent Partial DisabilityCompromise and ReleaseOpen Medical TreatmentRescinded DecisionReturned to Trial LevelAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ6657993
Regular
Oct 04, 2010

Fred Banales vs. Bank of America, Gallagher Bassett

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision that denied applicant Fred Banales' claim for industrial injury. The WCAB found that the administrative law judge (WCJ) may have improperly focused on the applicant's cell phone use and the accident occurring on a public street, rather than the potential special risk exception to the going-and-coming rule. The Board rescinded the prior findings and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings, including the admission of additional evidence like the police report, to determine if the employer's parking lot exit posed a special risk.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Risk ExceptionParking Lot ExitPublic StreetCell Phone UsageTraffic AccidentReconsiderationFindings of Fact
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08589 [156 AD3d 1031]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2017

Matter of Martins v. DiNapoli

Petitioner Fred Martins, a state trooper, sought accidental disability retirement benefits for two separate knee injuries sustained in November 2012 and July 2013. The first occurred while playing basketball during training, and the second from tripping on a tile at a dimly lit dispatch center. Respondent Thomas P. DiNapoli, as State Comptroller, denied both applications, concluding that neither incident constituted an 'accident' under the Retirement and Social Security Law. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed this determination, finding substantial evidence that the injuries resulted from risks that could have been reasonably anticipated or were due to the petitioner's own misstep, and thus were not accidental injuries within the meaning of the law. The court noted that injuries from activities in ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event, or from readily observable and anticipated conditions, do not qualify as accidental.

Accidental Disability RetirementState TrooperKnee InjuryTrip and FallBasketball InjuryAnticipated RiskOrdinary EmploymentCPLR Article 78Disability BenefitsAdministrative Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barker v. Madison Associates

Fred Barker, a window cleaner, sued Swing Stage Limited and 527 Madison Avenue Holdings, Inc., for injuries sustained on July 17, 1990, while attempting to exit a malfunctioning scaffold at 527 Madison Avenue. Barker alleged common law negligence and violations of N.Y. Labor Law §§ 202 and 240(1). The court denied Barker's motion for summary judgment on liability and granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found Labor Law § 240(1) inapplicable, as Barker's injury did not result from a fall from a height or being struck by a falling object, but from climbing over a railing. Furthermore, the court determined that Barker's injury was not proximately caused by the defendants' actions, as he was in a safe position and his chosen method of extrication was an unnecessary and dangerous course of action, thus dismissing all statutory and common law claims, including a derivative claim by Gerri Barker.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawScaffold SafetyProximate CauseContributory NegligenceWorker InjuryWorkplace SafetyPremises LiabilityStatutory InterpretationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 56 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