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. Sumpter

This criminal case concerns a defendant's conviction for third-degree sexual abuse. The evidence showed the defendant "confronted" a co-worker, grabbed and caressed her buttocks through clothing, and attempted to kiss her with his tongue, despite her protests. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the defendant's conduct legally sufficient to infer an intent for sexual gratification under Penal Law § 130.55, which defines sexual contact as any touching of intimate parts for sexual desire. The dissenting opinion argued that the incident was an isolated, unrequited overture between co-workers, lacked sufficient evidence of sexual gratification intent, and thus the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. However, the majority emphasized that the sexual gratification element could be inferred from the perpetrator's actions, and the complainant's testimony was credible.

Sexual Abuse Third DegreePenal Law Section 130.55Sexual ContactSexual GratificationWithout ConsentWorkplace IncidentCriminal ConvictionSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceAppellate Review
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bueno

Chief Judge Lippman dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that they misinterpreted Penal Law § 120.05 (3) regarding assault in the second degree. The dissent contends that the majority incorrectly focuses on the victim's activity rather than the defendant's specific intent to prevent an emergency medical technician (EMT) from performing a lawful duty. Lippman asserts that while intent to injure may have been present, the evidence was insufficient to prove the higher standard of specific intent required by the statute to interfere with the EMT's duties. The dissent also criticizes the majority's application of *People v Steinberg* to infer intent solely from the outcome of the act, stating that surrounding circumstances must also be considered. Concluding that the rule announced by the majority conflicts with the plain meaning of the statute, Chief Judge Lippman would reverse the Appellate Division's order.

AssaultSecond Degree AssaultPenal LawSpecific IntentLawful DutyEmergency Medical TechnicianEMTIntent to PreventPhysical InjuryCriminal Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maayeh v. Trinity Lloyds Ins. Co.

George Maayeh appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Trinity Lloyds Insurance Company and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company. The insurance companies had sought a declaration that they had no duty to defend Maayeh in a lawsuit where he was accused of sexual abuse of his minor stepdaughter, citing an intentional injury exclusion in his homeowner's policies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that intent to injure can be inferred as a matter of law in cases of sexual molestation, thus triggering the intentional injury exclusion. The court also rejected Maayeh's arguments regarding the adequacy of Trinity Lloyds' reservation of rights letter and estoppel, affirming the trial court's judgment.

Homeowner's InsuranceDuty to DefendIntentional Injury ExclusionSexual MolestationChild AbuseSummary JudgmentInsurance LawTexas LawAppellate ReviewReservation of Rights
References
17
Case No. SRO 0088351
Significant
Mar 20, 2002

Cheryl Coldiron vs. Compuware; Permissibly Self-Insured, by And through Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Adjusting Agent

The board issues a notice of intent to sanction a third-party administrator for failing to disclose the correct insurance carrier for over six years and schedules a conference to clarify the employer-insurer relationship.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEn BancPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermissibly Self-InsuredThird-Party AdministratorHigh Self-Insured RetentionSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Excusable Error
References
5
Case No. ADJ12226694, ADJ12414651, ADJ12414992, ADJ12414993
Significant
Jun 17, 2024

GUILLERMO GONZALEZ, et al., Applicants vs. THE BICYCLE CASINO; ARCH INDEMNITY INS. CO., administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT, et al., Defendants

The Appeals Board consolidates two cases and issues a notice of intent to impose sanctions and costs against attorney Susan Garrett and hearing representative Lance Garrett for filing petitions for reconsideration with the willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings.

Labor Code Section 5813SanctionsCostsAttorney's FeesImproper MotiveFrivolousUnnecessary DelayPetitions for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseWillful Intent
References
13
Case No. ADJ8965291; ADJ10451326; ADJ10750348; ADJ15382349; ADJ15382351; ADJ16951068; ADJ16951573; ADJ16953628; ADJ16953629; ADJ16124753; ADJ16124750; ADJ17290772; ADJ16953860
Significant

Alfredo Ledezma, et al. vs. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg, State Compensation Insurance Fund, et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board consolidates eight cases and issues a notice of intent to impose sanctions against attorney Susan Garrett and hearing representative Lance Garrett for a pattern of filing frivolous petitions for reconsideration with the intent to delay trial proceedings.

WCABen bancconsolidationsanctionscostsattorney's feesremovalreconsiderationLabor Code section 5813willful intent
References
12
Case No. ADJ13332737, ADJ15218980, ADJ12640295
Significant
Jun 17, 2024

ABEL HIDALGO, et al. vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP, permissibly self-insured, administered by SEDGWICK, et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board consolidates three cases to address sanctions against attorney Susan Garrett and hearing representative Lance Garrett for filing petitions for reconsideration with the intent to disrupt or delay trial proceedings, issuing a notice of intent to impose sanctions and costs.

En BancSanctionsCostsAttorney's FeesLabor Code 5813Willful IntentImproper MotiveFrivolousDelay TacticsPetition for Reconsideration
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prave v. State

The State of New York appealed 17 separate orders from the Court of Claims that denied its motion for summary judgment in actions alleging intentional assault stemming from the Attica uprising. The State contended that the claimants' acceptance of workers' compensation benefits barred their intentional tort claims, constituting an election of remedies. Claimants argued they never applied for benefits and should not be bound by such an election. The Appellate Division held that accepting benefits, even if initiated by the employer, generally precludes a subsequent tort action if the Workers' Compensation Board determined the injuries were compensable. To pursue their tort claims, claimants must first seek to rescind the Board's prior determination that their injuries were accidental. Therefore, the Court unanimously reversed the lower court's orders, granted summary judgment to the State, and dismissed the claims without prejudice for claimants to seek a redetermination from the Workers' Compensation Board.

Attica UprisingWorkers' CompensationIntentional TortExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentCollateral AttackWorkers' Compensation BoardRescission of AwardElection of RemediesCourt of Claims
References
6
Case No. ADJ739750 (FRE 0217695) ADJ3422922 (FRE 0217696) ADJ4620151 (FRE 0217213)
Regular
Sep 23, 2010

JERRY P. WILLIAMS vs. GOLDEN STATE VINTNERS and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) initially issued a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions against State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) for failing to provide a computer printout of benefits. SCIF objected, asserting the printout was available at a prior Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) with a former attorney. Although the printout was not explicitly mentioned in the MSC pre-trial statement or offered at trial, the WCAB accepted SCIF's representation of its availability. Consequently, finding no willful failure to comply with a regulatory obligation, the WCAB dismissed the Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNotice of Intention To Impose SanctionsWCAB Rule 10607computer printout of benefitsMandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)Declaration of Desiree A. Mercadopre-trial conference statementproposed exhibitsEAMSwillful failure to comply
References
0
Case No. ADJ7536985
Regular
May 13, 2013

WALTER BARNETT vs. LOS ANGELES TIMES, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order dismissing a lien. The lien claimant argued it never received the notice of intention to dismiss, but the Board found this contradictory as they had filed an objection. The Board also noted the lien claimant miscited and misrepresented relevant rules, and presented arguments previously rejected by the Board. Consequently, the Board issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500 against the lien claimant and its representatives for frivolous conduct and misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien ClaimantNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienFailure to AppearLien ConferenceAppeals Board Rule 10562SanctionsLabor Code Section 5813
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,658 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