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

In re the Claim of Schimmel

This is an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which disqualified the claimant from receiving benefits due to alleged employment misconduct, specifically fighting with a co-worker. The claimant challenges this decision, arguing that the Board should be bound by a prior determination in a co-worker's case which found no misconduct. The court affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the application of issue preclusion. It reasoned that the issues in the two proceedings (claimant's misconduct vs. co-worker's misconduct) were not identical, and the findings in the co-worker's case regarding the claimant's actions were not necessarily decided. The court noted that while the inconsistent results could have been avoided by consolidation, the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and issue preclusion did not apply.

unemployment benefitsmisconductissue preclusioncollateral estoppeladministrative lawLabor Lawappellate reviewcredibility determinationfactual inconsistencyco-worker dispute
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Casas v. Consolidated Edison Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on October 3, 2011, which declared the defendant's answer stricken due to non-compliance with a conditional preclusion order from October 31, 2006, and limited the trial to the issue of damages. This order was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for not complying with discovery requests and did not present a meritorious defense, which was necessary to vacate the preclusion order. The court also clarified that a Workers' Compensation Board panel decision dated August 28, 2009, regarding the plaintiff's accident-related disability, does not have preclusive effect. Additionally, a prior decision and order of this Court, entered on April 9, 2013, was recalled and vacated.

Discovery SanctionsStriking AnswerConditional Preclusion OrderSelf-Executing OrderMeritorious DefenseReasonable ExcuseWorkers' Compensation BoardPreclusive EffectAppellate ReviewRecall and Vacate Order
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 1975

Flynn v. Mario & Di Bono Plastering Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on August 8, 1975, denying the third-party defendant’s motion for an order of preclusion or to compel plaintiffs and the third-party plaintiff to provide certain particulars. The underlying case involves a wrongful death claim by plaintiffs, whose testate iron worker allegedly died from lung cancer due to asbestos exposure at a construction site. The plaintiffs alleged negligence against the manufacturer and supplier of the asbestos product for failing to comply with statutes, rules, and regulations. The third-party plaintiff, in turn, charged the appellant (third-party defendant) with similar violations. The appellate court unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, directing the plaintiffs-respondents and third-party plaintiff-respondent to furnish a further bill of particulars. The decision highlighted the requirement in tort actions to specifically identify any statutory violations asserted.

asbestos exposurewrongful deathlung cancerstatutory violationbill of particularsnegligencethird-party claimappellate reviewmotion to precludecause of action
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Campos

The claimant sustained a work-related injury in March 2003, leading to claims for neck, back, and consequential depression. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially sought medical testimony but later precluded claimant's treating psychiatrist, Vyas Persuad, from testifying or submitting reports, ruling he was not authorized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-a (1). The WCLJ found a psychiatric causally related disability but made no monetary award. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied claimant's subsequent application for review as untimely, asserting the appeal should have been made from the initial preclusion decision. The appellate court reversed this decision, clarifying that interlocutory issues do not mandate immediate appeal and that the preclusion issue was appropriately appealed after the WCLJ's final decision on the disability. The matter is now remitted to the Board to consider the merits of whether Persuad’s testimony and reports were properly excluded.

Workers' CompensationMedical Testimony PreclusionTimeliness of AppealInterlocutory DecisionPsychiatric DisabilityCausally Related DisabilityBoard ReviewRemittalPhysician AuthorizationAppellate Court Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
Case No. WCB G074 4160
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2013

Matter of Qualls v. Bronx District Attorney's Office

Claimant William Sanchez sustained a work-related injury to his left knee and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. After two surgeries, his treating physician determined he reached maximum medical improvement and released him to return to work with restrictions. Sanchez then obtained an order of preclusion due to the employer/carrier's failure to provide medical evidence. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this order and rescinded the preclusion order because the employer/carrier provided the required medical evidence before the preclusion order was issued. The employer/carrier appeals the finding that the claimant's period of temporary total disability extends beyond the date of maximum medical improvement.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsKnee InjuryMaximum Medical ImprovementPreclusion OrderAppellate DivisionMedical EvidenceTemporary Total DisabilityWork-Related InjurySedgwick CMS
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1995

Hickey v. C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc.

Plaintiff Roland E. Hickey, a labor supervisor, was injured after falling from a plank across a sluiceway at a dam construction site. He and his wife sued the owner, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (NY-SEG), and the general contractor, C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The defendants then filed a third-party action against Hickey's employer, Prepakt Concrete Company, for contribution and indemnification. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of strict liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants cross-moved to dismiss this claim, asserting the "recalcitrant worker" defense. The Supreme Court denied both motions, finding unresolved factual questions. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' motion, agreeing that factual issues persisted regarding whether adequate safety devices were provided and whether the plaintiff refused to use them, or if the plank itself was unauthorized and its use prohibited.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentRecalcitrant WorkerFall from HeightSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityIndemnificationContribution
References
2
Case No. ADJ7469391
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

DANIEL DIAZ NEGRON vs. CLEAR WATER HANDWASH dba MARINA CLASSIC CAR WASH, STATE FARM

This case involves a lien claimant, Best of California Business Promotions, whose petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it was based on an assumed dismissal of their lien that had not actually occurred. The lien claimant failed to appear at a scheduled lien trial and did not provide good cause for their absence. Furthermore, the Appeals Board is issuing a notice of intention to impose sanctions up to $1,000 against the lien claimant and its representatives for filing a frivolous petition and wasting judicial resources by arguing an issue not supported by the record. The Board is also removing the case on its own motion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of RemovalSanctionsLabor Code 5813Lien ClaimantNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienNon-Appearance at TrialLien Activation FeeUnconstitutional
References
1
Case No. ADJ4141215 (MON 0288595) ADJ4160601 (MON 0288596) ADJ2249717 (MON 0300098)
Regular
Dec 27, 2011

DOREEN LABOY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND / STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, finding their argument regarding AMA Guidelines irrelevant due to a prior stipulation to the 1997 Rating Schedule. The WCAB granted removal to issue notices of intention to impose sanctions and award attorney's fees/costs against the defendant and their counsel. This action is based on the defendant's frivolous and bad-faith tactics in raising an issue for the first time on reconsideration that was not previously litigated or argued. The defendant's petition is deemed without merit and solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

LABOYDOREENSTATE OF CALIFORNIADEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTHSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDJOINT FINDINGS AND AWARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONREMOVALNOTICES OF INTENTIONORDER TO PAY EXPENSES
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 1999

Claim of Williams v. New York State Department of Transportation

The claimant, who suffered a work-related injury in 1988, initially received permanent partial disability benefits at a mild rate in May 1996. Dissatisfied with this assessment, the claimant appealed, presenting medical evidence suggesting a more severe disability. This led the Workers’ Compensation Board to restore the case to the trial calendar for further development of the record concerning the degree of disability post-May 6, 1996. Although two physicians testified, with one indicating a moderate disability and another a total disability, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) ultimately awarded benefits at a moderate partial disability rate. Upon the claimant's subsequent appeal, the Board ruled that the claimant was precluded from raising the issue of their degree of disability, citing regulatory provisions. The appellate court found that the Board had abused its discretion, as the issue was explicitly remanded by the Board previously, and the claimant was still aggrieved by the WCLJ's award despite an increase in benefits. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationDisability AssessmentAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionProcedural ErrorMedical EvidenceDegree of DisabilityRemittalNew York LawAdministrative Appeal
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 8,896 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