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
Feb 15, 2012

Claim of Islam v. BD Construction & Building

The claimant, a legal permanent resident, was declared totally disabled in 2006 due to work-related head and neck injuries. In 2009, his workers' compensation benefits were suspended during his detention in Texas by immigration officials, as he failed to provide timely medical progress reports. Upon release in 2011, a physician confirmed his continued total disability, leading the Workers’ Compensation Board to award benefits for the period of detention. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing that the immigration detention qualified as incarceration upon felony conviction, rendering him ineligible. The court rejected this, stating his felony conviction resulted in probation, and immigration detention is civil. Additionally, the court affirmed the Board's decision to excuse the late filing of medical reports, citing its authority and the consistent medical evidence of ongoing disability.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsTotal DisabilityImmigration DetentionFelony ConvictionProbationMedical Progress ReportsCausally Related InjuryStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation LawBoard Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Paez v. Lackman Culinary Services

Claimant, an immigrant, injured his lower back while working as a food service worker in 2010. His workers' compensation claim was established, leading to surgery in 2012 for a herniated disc. Despite surgery, he continued to experience pain and was unable to return to his job. A WCLJ determined he had a permanent partial disability and an 80% loss of wage-earning capacity, which was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. Claimant appealed, arguing the Board failed to consider total industrial disability, an issue he had raised before the WCLJ. The appellate court found that the Board did err by not addressing the total industrial disability claim and remitted the matter for further proceedings, as total industrial disability can have a more favorable outcome than loss of wage-earning capacity.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityTotal Industrial DisabilityLumbar DiscectomyLaminectomyMedical ExaminationRemittalAppellate ReviewBack InjuryFood Service Worker
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Leeber v. LILCO

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant exposed to asbestos during employment with LILCO and its successor, resulting in occupational asbestosis and pleural disease. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the claimant permanently partially disabled and that his retirement, though incentivized, was partly due to his disability, thus not a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. The Board affirmed the disability finding but denied continued compensation after the claimant testified he had not sought post-retirement work. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Board erred by discontinuing awards solely based on the claimant's failure to seek employment post-retirement, as proof that a claimant has not sought work does not, by itself, defeat the inference that reduced earning capacity is due to disability. The matter was remitted for further proceedings consistent with the court's three-step analysis for evaluating voluntary withdrawal from the labor market.

Occupational AsbestosisPermanent Partial DisabilityVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketReduced Earning CapacityWorkers' Compensation AppealAppellate ReversalRemittalBurden of ProofDisability RetirementPost-Retirement Employment
References
4
Case No. ADJ8300983
Regular
Apr 28, 2014

ALBERTO CHICO vs. ONEMOR, INC., dba McDONALD'S, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORP.

The Appeals Board denied reconsideration for the Jacobs-represented lien claimants, upholding the disallowance of their liens due to a failure to prove industrial injury and insufficient evidence. However, the Board granted reconsideration for the Kauffman-represented lien claimants, rescinding the sanctions previously imposed. While agreeing that the Kauffman claimants also failed to prove injury, the Board found their conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith or frivolous tactics required for sanctions.

WCABlien claimantspetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderOrder Overruling Objection and Imposing Sanctionsindustrial injuryprobative evidencesanctionsbad-faith actionsfrivolous
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Santana

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The misconduct stemmed from an incident where the claimant, after an argument over radio volume, threatened a co-worker with an object appearing to be a knife, leading to his discharge. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's decision that the claimant lost his job due to disqualifying misconduct. The court also determined there was no error in allowing the co-worker to testify via telephone, noting the claimant did not object and had the opportunity to cross-examine. Consequently, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was affirmed.

Unemployment BenefitsMisconductThreatening BehaviorWorkplace DisputeCredibility IssueTelephone TestimonyAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardDisqualification
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Harvey

The claimant, a computer project specialist, was terminated from employment after repeatedly offending a co-worker by admonishing him about his personal life due to the claimant's religious beliefs. This occurred despite previous counseling from the employer to cease espousing religious beliefs in the workplace following complaints from numerous co-workers. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct, finding that he knew or should have known that his actions could lead to termination. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and did not violate the claimant’s right to free speech.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductReligious BeliefsWorkplace ConductFree SpeechEmployee TerminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCounselingCo-worker Complaints
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Denman v. Cobbler's Restaurant

Claimant sustained a work-related injury in 2003, leading to workers' compensation benefits. In July 2011, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined that the claimant had misrepresented her disabilities to influence benefit determinations, despite being totally disabled. This finding was based on hearing testimony and surveillance videos. Consequently, the WCLJ imposed a discretionary penalty, reducing her weekly benefits for one year. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ’s determination, concluding that the claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence derived from the claimant's testimony and the surveillance videos.

Misrepresentation of DisabilitySurveillance Video EvidenceDiscretionary PenaltyBenefit ReductionWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-a ViolationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWitness CredibilityIndependent Medical ExaminationTotal Disability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Hunter v. Town of Hempstead

Claimant, a sanitation worker, sustained a work-related back injury in 1996 and other injuries to his knees, foot, and shoulder over time. In 2010, after 32 years of service, the claimant retired, citing his various work-related injuries, and sought post-retirement benefits for the 1996 back injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that the claimant's retirement constituted a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market and was unrelated to the 1996 injury. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence in the record, including the claimant's own testimony and medical reports, that the 1996 injury was responsible for only a mild or moderate disability and that his retirement was prompted by knee problems rather than the back injury.

Voluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketWorkers' Compensation BenefitsBack InjuryKnee InjuryPost-Retirement BenefitsSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCausationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewMedical Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 1993

Claim of Dukes v. Capitol Formation, Inc.

A claimant was injured in an automobile accident in 1971 while on a business trip, resulting in a compensable injury. Over the next two decades, numerous hearings were held regarding medical bill payments and related compensation issues. The parties eventually entered into a stipulated settlement, which included a $75,000 lump-sum payment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-b). The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied the claimant’s request to set aside this stipulation, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The claimant's subsequent application for reconsideration was also denied by the Board. The appeals court dismissed the appeal of the Board’s June 7, 1993 decision as untimely, and affirmed the Board’s August 19, 1993 decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the application for reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationStipulated SettlementLump-Sum SettlementReconsiderationUntimely AppealAbuse of DiscretionFraudCollusionMistakeTotal Disability
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 7,023 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