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

Claim of Soluri v. Superformula Products, Inc.

Claimant was injured in a work-related accident in 2001, establishing a claim for injury to their low back and left hip. Initially determined to have a total permanent disability, the workers' compensation carrier sought review. Due to conflicting medical opinions, the Workers’ Compensation Board referred the case to an impartial specialist, subsequently determining the claimant had a mild permanent partial disability. Claimant appealed, arguing the Board improperly relied on the impartial specialist's opinion for not adhering to medical guidelines. The court disagreed, affirming the Board's decision, stating that the Board is empowered to resolve conflicting medical opinions, and the impartial specialist's findings, consistent with other physicians, constituted substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityImpartial Medical ExaminationMedical OpinionsSubstantial EvidenceBoard's AuthorityAppellate DivisionDisability RatingWork-Related InjuryMedical Guidelines
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 1973

In re the Arbitration between Yorktown Sportswear Co. & Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

The case involves a small garment manufacturer, the petitioner, who sought to relocate operations from New York City to Florida, violating a collective bargaining agreement with the New York Joint Board. An impartial chairman, the designated arbitrator, issued awards directing workers to return to employment, ordering the employer to cease relocation activities, and later found the employer violated an injunction, ordering a $25,000 bond for damages. Special Term concluded arbitrator misconduct, warranting a replacement. The Supreme Court modified the judgment, deleting the provision for a court-appointed arbitrator and returning all disputes to the impartial chairman for a final and binding award, affirming the judgment as modified. The court found no warrant for removing the impartial chairman, noting that his awards were non-final, incomplete, and vacatable under CPLR 7511.

collective bargainingarbitration disputeplant relocationinjunctionarbitrator authoritycontract violationCPLR 7511labor lawSupreme Court decisionjudgment modification
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacky W. v. N.Y.C. Board of Education

This action, brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), involved a plaintiff, an autistic child, challenging procedures implemented by The New York City Board of Education and The New York State Education Department. The plaintiff raised concerns about the impartiality of Impartial Hearing Officers (IHOs), arguing that their selection and payment by the Board rendered them employees, and also alleged violations related to the destruction of IHO opinion drafts. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting a lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the plaintiff's failure to exhaust state administrative remedies. The court granted summary judgment, concluding that claims regarding the Board's implementation of regulations required exhaustion of administrative remedies. However, the court also addressed the merits of the plaintiff's challenge to New York State Education Law § 4404 concerning IHO impartiality, ultimately finding the statute consistent with IDEA's due process requirements, as IHOs are not considered employees solely due to agency payment. Therefore, the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted entirely.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)Exhaustion DoctrineAdministrative RemediesFutility ExceptionImpartial Hearing Officer (IHO)New York City Board of EducationNew York State Education DepartmentSpecial EducationDue ProcessSummary Judgment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Johnson

This opinion from the Court of Appeals addresses the critical issue of juror impartiality in criminal trials, specifically concerning challenges for cause when prospective jurors express doubts about their fairness. The Court consolidated three cases: People v. Johnson and People v. Sharper, both robbery cases involving juror bias towards police testimony, and People v. Reyes, a drug sale case where jurors harbored biases related to drug abuse and a defendant's prior convictions. The Court reiterated that when potential jurors reveal a state of mind likely to preclude impartial service, they must provide unequivocal assurance of their ability to set aside any bias and render a verdict based solely on evidence. Concluding that the trial judges in these cases failed to obtain such unequivocal assurances, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of convictions in Johnson and Sharper, and reversed the Appellate Division's affirmation of conviction in Reyes, ordering a new trial. This decision underscores the fundamental constitutional right to an impartial jury and clarifies the standard for excusing biased jurors under CPL 270.20.

Jury SelectionVoir DireJuror ImpartialityChallenge for CauseUnequivocal AssurancePolice Testimony BiasDrug Offense BiasPrior Conviction BiasCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. ADJ7028627
Regular
Oct 18, 2011

STEVE WINELAND vs. FURNITURE DESIGN CENTER AND FIRST COMP.

The Applicant petitioned to disqualify the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) due to alleged enmity or bias against his attorney following an incident on September 1, 2011. The WCJ stated that the incident would not affect his impartiality and all decisions would be based on presented evidence. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding no reason to doubt his impartiality. Consequently, the petition for disqualification was denied.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ BiasAdministrative Law JudgeMandatory Settlement ConferencesEnmityPrejudiceEvidence-Based DecisionsReport and RecommendationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicant's Attorney
References
0
Case No. ADJ4237156
Regular
Nov 15, 2011

CON HOWE vs. AMERIGAS by SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case involves an applicant's petition to disqualify a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) due to alleged bias stemming from a prior incident. The applicant's attorney claimed the WCJ harbored enmity and would prejudice his clients. The WCJ, in his report, stated the incident would not affect his impartiality and all cases are decided on evidence. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report and denied the disqualification petition, finding no reason to doubt the WCJ's impartiality.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ BiasEnmityMandatory Settlement ConferencesReport and RecommendationEvidence-based DecisionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeApplicant's AttorneyCase ADJ4237156
References
0
Case No. ADJ2294426 (MON 0193402)
Regular
Aug 09, 2019

SONA SIMONIAN vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted a petition to disqualify Judge Yvonne Jones based on the appearance of bias. This was due to a sustained ethics complaint filed by lien claimant David Bressler, Ph.D., L.Ac., against Judge Jones concerning her conduct in this specific case. While Judge Jones asserted she could remain impartial, the Board found that a reasonable person could doubt her impartiality given the sustained ethics violation. The disqualification applies only to this case, and the matter will be reassigned.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ JonesDavid BresslerPh.D.L.Ac.sustained ethics complaintappearance of biasWCAB Rule 10452Code of Civil Procedure Section 641due process
References
3
Case No. ADJ7952240
Regular
Oct 20, 2011

LUCIA BIANCHI vs. MENDOCINO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, KEENAN AND ASSOCIATES

This case involves a petition for disqualification of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) by the applicant, Lucia Bianchi, and her attorney. The attorney alleged the WCJ demonstrated enmity or bias due to an incident on September 1, 2011, which would prejudice his clients. The WCJ submitted a report stating the incident would not affect his impartiality and decisions would be based solely on evidence. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the record and adopted the WCJ's report, finding no reason to doubt his impartiality. Accordingly, the Board denied the petition for disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJEnmity or BiasMandatory Settlement ConferencesReport and RecommendationEvidenceApplicant's AttorneyLitigantsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardGeorge R. Ferris
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Deblasio v. New York City Department of Highways

Claimant sustained an arm injury in 1984 and subsequently developed Parkinson's disease, leading to total disability. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found the injury aggravated his pre-existing Parkinson's, establishing causal relationship. However, a Workers’ Compensation Board panel rescinded these findings and, after an impartial specialist evaluation, determined the Parkinson's disease was unrelated to the 1984 injury. Claimant appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's ruling, finding no abuse of discretion in ordering the impartial evaluation and concluding that the decision was supported by substantial evidence despite conflicting medical testimony.

Parkinson's diseaseworkers' compensationmedical evidenceimpartial specialistcausal relationshipaggravation of conditionsubstantial evidencemedical testimonyappellate reviewtotal disability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Herman & New York City Transit Authority

The petitioners sought to vacate an arbitration award issued by Theodore Kheel, the impartial chairman of the transit industry. Their grievance concerned work pick rules which they claimed violated their seniority status and previous agreements between the Authority and its employees' unions. The arbitrator had denied their grievance, leading the petitioners to allege partiality and misbehavior on his part for consulting the Transport Workers Union. The court, however, found no basis for these charges, noting the informal nature of the arbitration and the arbitrator's prerogative to seek the union's opinion given the potential impact on other employees. Ultimately, the court concluded there was no impartiality or misbehavior and dismissed the petition to vacate the award.

arbitration awardvacate awardpartialitymisbehaviorwork rulesseniority rightsunion agreementgrievanceimpartial chairmanTransit Authority
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 154 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