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. 2020 NY Slip Op 04896 [186 AD3d 1770]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 2020

Matter of Wen Liu v. Division of Gen. Internal Medicine, Mount Sinai Sch. of Medicine

Wen Liu, a data programming analyst, filed for workers' compensation benefits in May 2010, claiming a neck injury from a June 5, 2008 fall at work due to dizziness. The employer failed to timely file a notice of controversy, but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed the claim, finding no causal connection between the injuries and employment. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this decision, which the claimant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the employer's procedural failure did not absolve the claimant of proving a causal relationship. Substantial evidence supported the Board's rejection of the claimant's medical proof, as emergency room records contradicted her later descriptions of the incident and indicated pre-existing conditions.

Workers' CompensationCausationMedical EvidenceTimely NoticeBurden of ProofInjuryFallDizzinessNeck InjuryCarpal Tunnel Syndrome
References
7
Case No. 83 Civ. 2059
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. International Transport Workers' Federation

This case addresses a complex labor dispute between plaintiffs William Perry (President of Local 6, International Longshoremen’s Association) and International Shipping Association (ISA) against defendant International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). Plaintiffs alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, alongside state law claims for tortious interference with contractual rights, primarily concerning ITF’s 'blacking' policy on 'flag of convenience' vessels. ITF cross-claimed for antitrust violations, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiffs’ antitrust claim, citing a statutory labor exemption for ITF's activities, and dismissed ITF's antitrust counterclaim. While denying summary judgment on most tortious interference claims due to factual disputes, the court granted summary judgment to defendant on ISA’s tortious interference claim and to plaintiff Local 6 on ITF’s counterclaim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the damages portion of the defendant's Lanham Act counterclaim.

Antitrust LawLabor DisputesSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceLanham ActSherman ActClayton ActNorris-LaGuardia ActFlag of Convenience VesselsCollective Bargaining
References
55
Case No. ADJ8876167
Regular
Sep 18, 2015

Manuel Ruiz vs. Schwan's Home Services, Inc., Hartford Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision. The defendant argued the ALJ erred by admitting a Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) reports and by ordering a second QME panel in internal medicine. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal, agreeing with the ALJ that the QME substantially complied with reporting deadlines and that an internal medicine evaluation was warranted due to the applicant's alleged stroke. Therefore, removal was deemed an inappropriate and extraordinary remedy.

RemovalPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelpsychology
References
2
Case No. ADJ94 70576
Regular
Jun 26, 2017

CARLOS CAMARGO vs. COX PETROLEUM TRANSPORT, EM OIL TRANSPORT, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, rescinded the original Finding and Order, and returned the case for further proceedings. The WCAB found that the primary medical evaluator's (QME) reports were not substantial evidence because they were based on incomplete and inaccurate history, and failed to consider the impact of industrial stress on the applicant's internal medicine conditions. Additionally, the WCAB determined that a separate evaluation by a psychology or psychiatry QME was warranted to address the applicant's psychiatric injury claim, as the internal medicine QME deferred to mental health specialists. Therefore, the record requires further development regarding both the physical and psychiatric aspects of the applicant's claimed industrial injuries.

AOE/COEQMEhypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathyindustrial stresspsychiatric injuryDSM-IVLabor Code section 3208.3preponderance of the evidenceaggravated conditionsupplementation of the record
References
12
Case No. 00-CV-1161
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2000

Gallagher v. INTERNATIONAL BROTH. OF ELEC. WORKERS

Plaintiff Michael Gallagher sued several entities, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and its President J.J. Barry, alleging age discrimination in employment referrals and retaliation through IBEW Local Union No. 43's hiring hall. Gallagher claimed the collective bargaining agreement facilitated discrimination against older workers and that Local 43 was an agent of the International defendants. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Gallagher failed to name the International defendants in his EEOC charge, thus failing to exhaust administrative remedies and that no identity of interest existed between the named and unnamed parties. The court granted the motion, dismissing the claims against the International defendants due to Gallagher's failure to file an administrative complaint against them and the lack of an agency relationship or ratification of discriminatory acts. Furthermore, the court found the claims to be time-barred under both state and federal statutes of limitations.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawLabor UnionCollective Bargaining AgreementEEOCNYSDHRExhaustion of Administrative RemediesFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)Judgment on PleadingsStatute of Limitations
References
32
Case No. ADJ8835693
Regular
Apr 01, 2015

DIANA MORALES vs. ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's petition for removal, rescinding an administrative law judge's order for additional QME panels. The employer argued the order improperly bypassed statutory procedures for obtaining QME panels, specifically Labor Code Sections 4060, 4062, and 4062.2, and would cause irreparable harm and prejudice. The Board agreed, finding the required prerequisite of a treating physician's determination and an objection thereto was not met for internal medicine, neurology, or gynecology. Consequently, the order for these panels was rescinded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalQualified Medical ExaminerLabor Code Sections 406040624062.2Medical DirectorDivision of Workers' CompensationAgreed Medical EvaluatorApplication for Adjudication of Claim
References
0
Case No. ADJ11629744
Regular
Apr 24, 2023

ROCHELLE BOYD vs. VISSER, NATIONAL INTERSTATE RICHFIELD

The applicant sought reconsideration after the WCJ denied injury claims to the brain, internal system, psyche, and sexual dysfunction, as well as the issuance of additional QME panels. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding good cause existed for additional QME panels in internal medicine and psychiatry. The original findings of fact were rescinded, and the issue of further QME panels in urology and neurology was deferred. The Board concluded that additional QME evaluations were necessary for a full adjudication of the claimed injuries outside of the admitted orthopedic injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelsinternal medicinepsychiatryneurologyurologysexual dysfunctionpsyche
References
3
Case No. ADJ18210611
Regular
May 08, 2025

ELENITA JOVER vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

Elenita Jover, a licensed vocational nurse, sought reconsideration of a Findings and Award that denied her request for additional Qualified Medical Evaluation (QME) panels. The initial F&A found injuries to her cervical and lumbar spine, shoulders, and right thumb, but not to other claimed body parts like stress, psyche, or internal systems. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the original F&A, and ordered additional QME panels for pulmonology, internal medicine (diabetes), ophthalmology, ENT, and neurology, returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings. This decision was based on the original QME's recommendation for further evaluations and the need to develop the evidentiary record to ensure substantial justice.

Petition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluationLicensed Vocational NurseArising out of and in the course of employmentPermanent DisabilityDue ProcessPulmonologistInternistOphthalmologistOtolaryngologist
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Kitty Hawk International, Inc. (In Re Kitty Hawk, Inc.)

The case involves a motion for partial summary judgment by Kitty Hawk International, Inc. (Debtor) against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Union). The Union sought a declaratory judgment that its members' claims under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) were immediately due and payable as administrative expenses, arguing the CBA was not properly rejected. The Debtor contended these were pre-petition claims not entitled to priority. The court ruled in favor of the Debtor, holding that claims arising from a CBA not rejected under § 1113 are still subject to the priority scheme of § 507. It found that both the CBA Claims and WARN Claims were not administrative claims because no services were rendered post-petition, making them lower priority unsecured claims.

BankruptcyChapter 11Collective Bargaining AgreementWARN ActClaim PriorityAdministrative ExpensesWage ClaimsDebtor-Employer RelationsUnion ClaimsSummary Judgment
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curry v. American International Group, Inc. Plan No. 502

Curry, a former Regional Insurance Underwriting Manager for AIG, sued American International Group, Inc. Plan No. 502 and American International Life Assurance Co. of New York ("AI Life") under ERISA § 502(a) after her long-term disability benefits were terminated. Curry suffers from degenerative osteoarthritis and diabetes. AI Life initially approved her benefits but later terminated them, alleging she could perform a sedentary occupation, relying on unverified medical responses. The court found AI Life's decision to be arbitrary and capricious due to its reliance on unreliable medical opinions, failure to clarify the record, and disregard for Curry's doctors' reports. Consequently, the court granted Curry's motion for summary judgment, denying the defendants' motion, and ordered the reinstatement of her benefits with prejudgment interest and attorney's fees.

ERISALong-term disabilityBenefits terminationArbitrary and capricious standardConflict of interestMedical opinionUnreliable evidenceSummary judgmentOrthopaedic conditionsDiabetes
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 2,442 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