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

Darin J. v. Tylena S.

The case concerns an appeal from a Family Court order regarding child neglect. Petitioner Darin J. and Chenango County Department of Social Services filed petitions alleging respondent John K. exposed minor children to pornography, leading to a neglect adjudication against him and a modification of visitation rights for respondent Tylena S. (the mother). Tylena S. and John K. appealed this decision. Their appellate counsel sought to be relieved, claiming no non-frivolous issues existed, but the appellate court identified several such issues. Consequently, the appellate decision is withheld, counsels' applications to be relieved are granted, and new counsel will be assigned to address the identified issues.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActVisitation RightsOrder of ProtectionAppellate ReviewCounsel AssignmentNon-Frivolous IssuesSufficiency of EvidenceFamily AssessmentPornography Exposure
References
5
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 1991

Browne v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union 851

The Supreme Court of New York County affirmed an order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court found that triable issues of fact existed regarding the defendants' alleged negligence in the control and operation of a truck in which the plaintiff was a passenger. Further issues of fact were identified concerning the reasonableness of precautionary steps taken by the defendants in the face of striking workers' picketing. Additionally, the court noted triable issues regarding the foreseeability of injury and whether an alleged intervening criminal act constituted foreseeable harm shaping the duty of care.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceTriable Issues of FactForeseeabilityIntervening ActTruck OperationPicket LineWorker StrikeCPLR 3212Appellate Affirmation
References
2
Case No. ADJ441097 (MON 0347404)
Regular
Sep 07, 2017

ROBERT ESQUERRA vs. EAGLE IRON CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Max MRI Imaging's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the prior finding of no liability for the lien. The original decision was based on an issue (RFA form) not properly identified for trial by the parties. The case is returned to the trial level to address the central dispute: whether services provided outside the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN) at a non-designated physician's request are compensable despite defendant's objections. The Administrative Law Judge must issue new findings on this specific issue and Max MRI's other contentions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationMedical Provider NetworkPrimary treating physicianWritten objectionsRequest for authorizationFindings and AwardDecision After ReconsiderationAdministrative law judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ7427901
Regular
Oct 29, 2013

PABLO GONZALES vs. KVS TRANSPORTATION, INC., SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a finding that Pablo Gonzales sustained a specific industrial injury of Valley Fever on December 29, 2009. The Board found that while medical evidence did not support a specific injury date, the record might support a cumulative injury, occupational disease, or latent injury arising from employment. The case is returned to the WCJ to determine if pleadings should be amended to conform to this proof and to issue a new decision. Issues regarding self-procured medical treatment and medical-legal expenses were improperly addressed and should be limited to issues identified at trial.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardKVS TransportationSeabright Insurance CompanyPablo GonzalesADJ7427901Findings and AwardReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryDecember 29 2009Chest
References
6
Case No. SAC 330204
Regular
Mar 03, 2008

William Reynolds vs. RCI PLUMBING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's finding that the applicant was not injured in the course of employment because this issue was not identified for trial. The WCJ's finding that the applicant was employed by RCIP is affirmed. The case is remanded for further proceedings and a new decision by the WCJ on the issue of industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryCourse of EmploymentEmployment StatusThreshold IssueMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosureDue ProcessSua SpontePreponderance of Evidence
References
14
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. ADJ6839977
Regular
Sep 16, 2013

MARK LEICESTER vs. COX COMMUNICATION dba DENT WIZARD INTERNATIONAL, AMERICAN HOME INSURANCE adjusted by BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration. This decision rescinded the original Findings and Awards and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The primary issue was that the original decision relied on exhibits not formally admitted into evidence, violating procedural rules for evidence admission. The Board also noted the absence of stipulations or identified issues in the hearing minutes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardsLien ClaimantLabor Code section 4603.2(b)(1)Cumulative Trauma InjuryIrritable Bowel SyndromePsychiatric InjuryStipulations With Request for AwardLien Conference
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 9,180 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