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 Moysello v. David

The claimant, a taxicab driver for David’s Taxi and David Enterprises, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in January 2007. An investigation by the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that Charles David and David Enterprises were the uninsured "true owners" and employers. A workers’ compensation law judge found them to be employers and uninsured, a decision affirmed by the Board, which found they met the presumptive definition of employer under Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (former [3]) and had proper jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that proper notice of the hearing was received despite competing address claims.

Motor Vehicle AccidentTaxicab DriverEmployer DefinitionUninsured EmployerWorkers' Compensation LawNotice of HearingBoard ReviewAppellate DecisionSubstantial EvidenceCorporate Ownership
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re David J.

This dissenting opinion argues against the Family Court's decision to return Candice, Christine, and David to their parents, Roslyn K. and Steven K., after the petitioner charged the parents with neglect. The parents previously fled the state with the children, violating a court order. The dissent cites medical neglect of the daughters, alleged physical abuse and extreme isolation of David by his stepfather, and the mother's refusal to send David to school. The dissenting judge concludes that the parents' non-compliance and bizarre behavior create an imminent risk to the children's well-being, advocating for continued foster care.

Child neglectParental non-complianceChild welfareFamily Court proceedingsChild abuse allegationsMedical care refusalEducational neglectDissenting opinionBest interests of childTemporary removal order
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2010

Morris v. David Lerner Associates

Dora Morris sued her former employer, David Lerner Associates (DLA), and its President, David Lerner, for employment discrimination. She alleged gender discrimination due to unequal pay and a hostile work environment, claiming she was paid less than male counterparts and subjected to inappropriate comments and actions by Lerner. Morris also alleged retaliatory termination after complaining about the pay disparity. Defendants moved to dismiss parts of the complaint, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to state a claim. The Court denied the defendants' motion, finding that Morris's hostile work environment and retaliatory termination claims were reasonably related to her EEOC charge and were adequately pled under legal standards.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationMotion to DismissEEOC ExhaustionPleading StandardTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawDisparate Treatment
References
56
Case No. 533324
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of David Yolinsky

Claimant David Yolinsky, a firefighter, sustained a work-related right knee injury in July 2016. After initial treatment, his symptoms were deemed "essentially resolved" by August 2017. Following a 17-month treatment gap and new knee pain from playing volleyball, a 2019 MRI revealed a defect, and surgery was recommended. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially granted authorization, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding no causal relationship between the requested surgery and the 2016 injury. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the minimal initial lost time, lack of significant early findings, and the 17-month treatment gap.

Knee InjuryCausation DisputeMedical Expert TestimonyAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmedSurgical Authorization DeniedIndependent Medical EvaluationChondral DefectBaker's CystFirefighter
References
7
Case No. 534443
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of David Dunlap

In October 2019, claimant David Dunlap, an airline pilot, filed for workers' compensation benefits, asserting work-related brain damage and neurological disorders due to toxic fume inhalation. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially disallowed the claim, citing a lack of established causally-related disability. Dunlap's subsequent application for review by the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) was denied because he failed to fully complete question 13 of form RB-89, specifically omitting identification of a toxicologist's report. The Board also denied his request for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed both Board decisions, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the application for review due to non-compliance with its regulations.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative ReviewRegulatory ComplianceApplication DenialBoard DiscretionAppellate DivisionToxic Fume InhalationCausally-Related DisabilityForm RB-89Medical Evidence
References
9
Case No. CV-24-2093
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of David Sylvester

David Sylvester sustained work-related left shoulder injuries in 2017 and 2021, leading to awards for schedule loss of use (SLU) of his left arm. Following the 2021 injury, medical opinions differed on the extent of SLU, with the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) ultimately determining a 40% SLU without addressing a credit for a prior 10% SLU award. The Workers' Compensation Board, in an April 2024 decision, confirmed the 40% SLU and granted the carrier a credit for the earlier award. Sylvester's subsequent application for reconsideration or full Board review was denied in June 2024. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's denial, finding no abuse of discretion as Sylvester failed to present new evidence or a material change in condition.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseLeft Arm InjuryReconsideration ApplicationFull Board ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousPrior Award CreditMaximum Medical Improvement
References
9
Case No. 533489
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of David Bonet

Claimant David Bonet appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from January 8, 2021, which denied his claim for benefits for a causally-related occupational disease. Bonet, who worked for 29 years for the New York City Transit Authority as a track worker/specialist operator, alleged repetitive stress injuries to his neck and shoulders after retiring in November 2019. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found insufficient evidence to establish a causal connection between his work activities and the alleged occupational disease. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Bonet failed to demonstrate a recognizable link between his condition and a distinctive feature of his employment, citing the treating physician's limited knowledge of Bonet's specific job duties.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsOccupational Disease ClaimCausally-Related InjuryRepetitive Stress InjuryMedical Evidence SufficiencyBurden of ProofAppellate AffirmationJudicial ReviewEmployment HistoryPhysician's Testimony
References
9
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02784 [194 AD3d 691]
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2021

David v. David

The infant plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident. The plaintiffs sought approval for a settlement, but Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, the administrator of the infant plaintiff's mother's self-funded employee benefit plan, asserted a subrogation lien for medical expenses. The Supreme Court denied the lien, citing New York's anti-subrogation statute, General Obligations Law § 5-335. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the self-funded plan was governed by ERISA, which preempts the state anti-subrogation statute. Consequently, the subrogation lien was deemed enforceable against the settlement proceeds.

ERISA PreemptionSubrogation LienSelf-Funded Employee BenefitsPersonal Injury SettlementAnti-Subrogation StatuteAppellate DivisionInfant CompromiseAutomobile AccidentReimbursement ClaimsNew York Law
References
5
Case No. ADJ6639658, ADJ6639756
Regular
Jan 24, 2012

DAVID LEYVA vs. CABRAL ROOFING & WATERPROOFING, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves applicant David Leyva's petition for reconsideration before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board reviewed the petition and the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. Finding no grounds to overturn the judge's prior decision, the Board denied reconsideration. Consequently, the applicant's request to revisit the case is rejected.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDDAVID LEYVACABRAL ROOFING & WATERPROOFINGLIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANYADJ6639658ADJ6639756ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATIONPetition for Reconsiderationworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJ
References
0
Case No. ADJ7719913
Regular
Feb 06, 2013

DAVID A. MARTINEZ vs. SHAW MOSES AND MENDENHALL, GOLDEN EAGLE

This case involves an applicant, David A. Martinez, who alleged injury to his back and right foot arising out of and occurring in the course of employment. The defendant denied the claim based on Labor Code §3600(a)(10) and timeliness of reporting, proceeding to trial solely on the AOE/COE issue. The Administrative Law Judge found no industrial injury, and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, adopting the Judge's reasoning and giving deference to the credibility findings. The Board upheld the denial of the claim for industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportIndustrial InjuryAOE/COELabor Code §3600(a)(10)Timely ReportedContinuous TraumaBack InjuryFoot Injury
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 8,748 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