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

Commissioner of Department of Social Services v. Dixon

Patricia Dixon appealed a Family Court order that found her children, Michael, Patricia, and Diana, neglected and continued their custody with the Onondaga County Department of Social Services (DSS). The neglect finding stemmed from Dixon's severe alcohol addiction, which led to her inability to provide proper supervision and care for her children. The case detailed a history of neglect adjudications and removals of her children, including Diana, who required specific health attention. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the Family Court's determination, concluding that the evidence of Dixon's continued alcohol abuse justified the finding of neglect under the Family Court Act. The court noted Dixon's right to reapply to Family Court upon demonstrating a substantial change in her conduct.

Child NeglectAlcohol AddictionParental CustodyFamily CourtAppellate DecisionSocial Services InterventionChild WelfareSupervision StandardsGuardianshipFact-Finding Order
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dixon v. Leonardo

Plaintiff Lawrence Dixon filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against unnamed defendants, alleging unlawful placement in a Special Housing Unit (SHU) without a hearing after refusing a prison job assignment. Magistrate Judge Daniel Scanlon, Jr. recommended denying plaintiff's motions and granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. Chief Judge McAVOY reviewed plaintiff's objections, finding them without merit. The court affirmed that the case was properly referred to the magistrate and found no evidence of bias. Crucially, the court determined that while plaintiff had a protected liberty interest in remaining free from administrative segregation, the minimal procedural safeguards provided—notice of charges and an opportunity to present his views—were constitutionally sufficient. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and all of plaintiff's motions were denied.

42 U.S.C. § 1983Prisoner RightsDue ProcessAdministrative SegregationSpecial Housing Unit (SHU)Summary JudgmentMagistrate Judge ReportPrison Job AssignmentProcedural Due ProcessLiberty Interest
References
30
Case No. CA 15-00506
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2016

PEARSON, JASON v. WALLACE, JEREMY

Plaintiff Jason Pearson, an employee, sustained injuries at a construction site due to a falling incident involving a ladder and a concrete truck chute. He moved for partial summary judgment on liability against the general contractor, LeCesse Construction Services, LLC, and the property owner, Geneva General Hospital, under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied his motion, and Pearson appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, ruling that while Pearson initially met his burden, the defendants and third-party defendants successfully raised triable issues of fact regarding the accident's proximate cause and the plaintiff's potential sole proximate cause through disregard of safety directives.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentLadder AccidentProximate CauseContributory NegligenceWorkplace SafetyGeneral Contractor LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilitySubcontractor Liability
References
8
Case No. ADJ3896322
Regular
Oct 21, 2014

JEREMY SYKES vs. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION

This case involves Jeremy Sykes's Petition for Removal (denominated as a Petition for Recusal/Disqualification) against Swift Transportation and WCJ David Thorne. Sykes alleged bias by the WCJ, but his petition lacked required verification and was untimely. The WCAB denied removal, adopting the WCJ's report which found the petition procedurally deficient and Sykes's testimony at a prior trial exceeded the filing deadline. The Board also warned Sykes against disrespectful remarks towards the WCJ and the Board.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCJ BiasApplicant in propria personaRules of Practice and ProcedureSanctionable ConductMedical TreatmentExpedited HearingOath of WitnessRecusal
References
0
Case No. ADJ2552389 (OAK 0301853), ADJ2702419 (OAK 0301854), ADJ350772 (OAK 0301856), ADJ3854894 (OAK 0321466)
Regular
Mar 26, 2012

BARBARA LIGE-DIXON vs. A.C. TRANSIT, SEDGWICK CMS, INC.

The defendant, AC Transit, sought reconsideration of an award finding four industrial injuries and three awards of permanent disability for Barbara Lige-Dixon. The primary dispute concerned whether the defendant could credit permanent disability advances made in one case (resulting in zero disability) against its liability in other cases. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding equitable considerations supported allowing the credit across all cases due to overlapping injuries and evolving medical apportionment. The Board amended the award to permit the $12,930 advance credit, while deferring the issue of attorney fees against third-party recovery for further trial-level proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermissibly Self-InsuredJoint Findings Award and OrdersPermanent DisabilityPermanent Disability AdvancesCreditThird Party RecoveryEquitable ConsiderationsApportionmentAgreed Medical Examiner
References
0
Case No. ADJ2825571 (LBO 0359176)
Regular
Mar 19, 2012

RONALD METSKER (dec.); KIMBERLY METSKER (dec.), JEREMY DIXON, ET AL. vs. DOUBLETREE CLUB HOTEL; CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE CO.

This order denies a petition for reconsideration in the case of *Metsker (dec.) et al. v. Doubletree Club Hotel*. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition and the administrative law judge's report. Finding the judge's reasoning sound and incorporated into their decision, the WCAB denied the reconsideration. The specific grounds for the original decision and the reasons for denial are detailed in the judge's report.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeDenying ReconsiderationRonald MetskerKimberly MetskerJeremy DixonDoubletree Club HotelCalifornia Indemnity Insurance Co.ADJ2825571
References
0
Case No. ADJ14784661
Regular
Aug 01, 2025

Jeremy Vietmeier vs. Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, American Home Assurance Company

Applicant Jeremy Vietmeier sought reconsideration of a WCJ's May 8, 2025 Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) which found good cause for an additional neurology QME panel but denied one in psychiatry. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration but granted it as a petition for removal. They rescinded the original F&O and substituted new findings, determining that good cause exists for additional QME panels in both neurology and psychiatry. The Board also provided guidance regarding the admissibility of a psychiatric report from David Kauss, Ph.D., disagreeing with a dissenting commissioner on its immediate inadmissibility, noting the issue was not yet ripe for a ruling.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Medical DirectorDivision of Workers' Compensation (DWC)AdmissibilityPsychiatric ReportGood CauseFinal Order
References
17
Case No. ADJ3512839 (VNO 0509649)
Regular
Jul 27, 2010

KEIUNTA DIXON vs. APPLE ONE, ACE USA, Administered By ESIS, INC., AIG SUN AMERICA/NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, Administered By CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

In *Dixon v. Apple One*, the defendant sought reconsideration of a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration due to statutory time constraints and the need for further review. This action allows for a more thorough examination of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just decision. The Board will subsequently issue a Decision After Reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardGranting ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersFrank M. BrassAlfonso U. Moresi
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03642
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2021

Lorica v. Krug

Plaintiff Joseph Lorica, an employee of third-party defendant G & C Plumbing & Heating Corp., was injured in a fall at a construction site owned by defendant Jeremy Krug and managed by defendant The Krug Group Corp. Lorica and his spouse derivatively commenced an action against Krug and The Krug Group Corp., alleging Labor Law violations. The defendants then filed a third-party action against G & C seeking contractual and common-law indemnification. The Supreme Court dismissed the common-law indemnification claim but partially denied G & C's motion for summary judgment on the contractual indemnification claim, finding questions of fact. G & C appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that G & C failed to meet its initial burden on summary judgment due to unresolved questions of fact regarding whether the parties had an indemnification agreement prior to the accident and whether a written agreement signed after the accident was intended to apply retroactively.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentRetroactive AgreementWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Labor Law § 240Construction Site InjuryThird-Party ClaimAppellate ReviewHold Harmless AgreementQuestions of Fact
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 1982

Claim of Dixon v. Sterling Drugs

This case involves an appeal stemming from a Workers' Compensation Board decision issued on July 8, 1982. The Board previously determined that the claimant suffered a myocardial infarction on January 11, 1979, which was causally related to strenuous work activities. This finding was supported by the testimony of Dr. B. J. Davis. The appellate court reviewed the evidence and concluded that there was substantial evidence to uphold the Board's original determination. Consequently, the court affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationAppealMyocardial InfarctionCausally Related InjurySubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyWork-related InjuryBoard Decision
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 31 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