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 Milner v. Country Developers, Inc.

The Special Disability Fund appealed decisions by the Workmen’s Compensation Board which imposed liability on the Fund for a claimant's injuries. The Board found that the employer, Country Developers, continued to employ the claimant, a carpenter, with knowledge of his pre-existing permanent physical impairment, triggering liability under subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The claimant suffered a fracture of the nose and a hip dislocation in 1964, having a history of three ruptured disc surgeries and other conditions. The appeal centered on whether the employer had sufficient knowledge of the claimant’s permanent condition. Testimony from the employer’s foreman, Mr. Pahlck, indicated awareness of the claimant's back issues, including wearing a back brace and being favored by co-workers. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, reiterating that employer knowledge is a question of fact for the Board, and its findings, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundEmployer LiabilityPre-existing Permanent ImpairmentEmployer KnowledgeSubstantial EvidencePermanent Partial DisabilityFracture of NoseHip DislocationRuptured Discs
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Griffin v. John Civetta & Sons

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision discharging the Special Disability Fund from liability. The claimant sustained two back injuries, one prior to employment in September 1973 and a compensable one in October 1974 while working for the employer. Subsequently, the claimant's disability was apportioned 50% to each accident. The central issue was whether the employer had the requisite knowledge of the claimant's pre-existing permanent impairment, a condition for the Special Disability Fund's liability under Workers’ Compensation Law section 15 (subd 8, par [d]). The Board discredited evidence provided by the appellants, including a statement prepared by the employer's carrier and the job superintendent's vague testimony, finding insufficient proof of employer knowledge. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the employer lacked the necessary knowledge.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundPre-existing ImpairmentEmployer KnowledgeDisability ApportionmentAppellate ReviewCredibility of EvidenceWorkers’ Compensation LawBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woodman v. WWOR-TV, Inc.

Brenda K. Woodman filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination against WWOR-TV, Inc., News America, Inc., and Fox Television Stations, Inc., following her termination in 2001 at the age of 61. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting they lacked knowledge of Woodman's age, a prerequisite for intentional age discrimination. The court determined that Woodman failed to present sufficient prima facie evidence to establish that the defendants were aware of her age at the time of her discharge. Her arguments based on circumstantial evidence, such as general industry knowledge of her age or personnel file access, were deemed speculative and insufficient. The court also dismissed Woodman's disparate impact claim due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies and rejected the application of the joint employer doctrine to impute knowledge. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentADEANYSHRLNYCHRLDisparate TreatmentEmployer KnowledgePrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkMerger and Acquisition
References
38
Case No. ADJ10881718
Regular
Jul 19, 2019

WANDA JACKSON vs. CVS PHARMACY, INC., NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case, *Jackson v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.*, concerns the date of injury for a cumulative trauma claim under Labor Code section 5412. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant did not know her disability was work-related until receiving medical advice. The applicant's belief that her pain was caused by work activities was insufficient without knowledge that it constituted a compensable cumulative injury. Therefore, the date of injury was determined to be when she gained this medical knowledge, not when she first experienced symptoms or had a general belief about their origin.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5412date of injurycumulative injuryoccupational diseasedisabilityknowledge of industrial origintemporary disabilitypermanent disability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas A. Galante & Son, Inc. v. State Division of Human Rights

The petitioner employer sought judicial review of a State Human Rights Appeal Board's determination, which found the employer discriminated against the complainant by terminating her employment due to pregnancy. The Board had ordered back pay and reemployment. The court's review focused on whether the Board's finding was supported by substantial evidence, specifically regarding the employer's knowledge of the complainant's pregnancy. The court concluded that the evidence, based on a coworker's testimony that "everybody knew" about the pregnancy, was insufficient to establish the employer's management had such knowledge. Therefore, the court granted the petition and annulled the Board's determination.

Employment LawDiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationHuman Rights LawJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawSubstantial EvidenceAppellate CourtEmployer LiabilityBurden of Proof
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beattie v. Ebbels

The claimant, an office manager employed since 1965, suffered a compensable injury on February 25, 1981, leading to an award for a permanent partial disability. The employer was aware of the claimant's preexisting herniated disc from 1965, but the claimant performed duties without issues. The primary legal question addressed whether the employer's knowledge of this preexisting condition at the time of hire established liability for the Special Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8). The Worker’s Compensation Board determined there was insufficient knowledge, a decision which the court affirmed. Additionally, a jurisdictional issue raised by the carrier was found to be without merit, leading to an affirmation of the decision with costs awarded to the Special Disability Fund.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilitySpecial Disability FundPreexisting ConditionEmployer KnowledgeAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionJurisdictional IssueDecision Affirmed
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Heidi CC.

A proceeding was initiated against a respondent and her fiance under Family Court Act article 10, seeking to adjudicate the respondent's daughter as abused and neglected after the daughter reported sexual abuse by the fiance in Canada. The Family Court initially found both abuse, based on respondent's knowledge and allowance of the abuse, and neglect, due to her failure in parental obligations after placing the child in petitioner's custody. On appeal, the abuse finding was reversed because the daughter's out-of-court statement was insufficiently corroborated regarding the respondent's knowledge of the sexual conduct. However, the neglect finding was affirmed, as the record substantially supported the respondent's pattern of inadequate care, non-cooperation with foster care plans, and expressed intent to avoid her parental responsibilities.

AbuseNeglectChild CustodySexual AbuseParental ObligationsFamily CourtClinton CountyCorroborationSufficiency of EvidenceFoster Care
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of White v. Tougher Industries

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the timely filing of a claim for occupational hearing loss. The claimant, a sheet metal worker, filed a claim in December 1994, alleging work-related hearing loss first noticed in 1989. The Board determined the claim was timely filed under Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb, finding the claimant only gained knowledge of the work-relatedness after a medical diagnosis in January 1995. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that the claimant's earlier suspicions were insufficient to trigger the 90-day filing period. The court concluded that the record supported the Board's finding that the requisite knowledge was acquired upon medical diagnosis.

Workers' Compensation LawOccupational DiseaseHearing LossTimeliness of ClaimKnowledge RequirementMedical DiagnosisAppellate ReviewSection 49-bbBoard DecisionAffirmation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Town of Oyster Bay

The court considered several factors when determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, including the petitioner's reasonable excuse, the public corporation's actual knowledge of the claim's essential facts, and potential prejudice to the corporation. The petitioner failed to provide a reasonable excuse, offering only a conclusory statement about attorney error. Additionally, the petitioner could not establish that the Town of Oyster Bay had actual knowledge of the accident, as an oral report and a workers' compensation claim form were deemed insufficient. The petitioner also did not refute the Town's assertion of prejudice due to the over eight-month delay in filing, especially given subsequent alterations to the accident details. Consequently, the Supreme Court should have denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Late notice of claimGeneral Municipal LawActual knowledgePrejudiceReasonable excuseWorkers' compensation claimSlip and fallNegligenceSupreme CourtTown of Oyster Bay
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 1988

Tania J. v. Esther J.

The Commissioner of Social Services appealed a Family Court decision dismissing child protective proceedings against Esther J., the mother of Tania, who was sexually abused by Esther's live-in boyfriend, Arthur Leon Little. The Family Court found Little abused Tania but acquitted Esther J., claiming insufficient proof of her knowledge or failure to protect. The appellate court reversed, citing evidence from medical examinations and Tania's out-of-court statements to professionals, which demonstrated Esther J. had actual or constructive knowledge of the abuse. The court found Esther J. failed to protect Tania, especially after Tania's gonorrhea diagnosis and physical signs of chronic trauma, establishing a prima facie case of abuse and neglect. The case was remanded for a dispositional hearing.

Child Protective ProceedingsSexual AbuseChild NeglectParental ResponsibilityFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewOut-of-Court StatementsCorroboration of AbusePrima Facie EvidenceGonorrhea Diagnosis
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,953 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