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
Mar 01, 1949

United States v. Foster

Defendants indicted for conspiracy to overthrow the government challenged the jury selection process in the Southern District of New York. They alleged systematic exclusion of the poor, minorities, women, and political affiliates, arguing that property qualifications and low juror fees were unconstitutional. Judge Medina conducted a six-week trial, reviewing extensive evidence from 1940-1949 jury records and witness testimonies. The court found no deliberate, willful, or systematic discrimination, concluding that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proof. The judge overruled the challenge and denied all motions, emphasizing the broad discretion in jury selection and rejecting the concept of proportional representation for jury lists.

Jury selection challengeSystematic exclusionJury discriminationEconomic statusRacial minoritiesWomen's rightsPolitical affiliationGrand jury panelPetit jury venireConstitutional challenge
References
6
Case No. ADJ8217179
Regular
Jun 18, 2012

CYNTHIA BRUNNEMER vs. DFA OF CALIFORNIA, LIBERTY MUTUAL

Applicant's attorney filed a petition that was initially miscaptioned as a "Petition for Disqualification," causing confusion for the Workers' Compensation Judge. The applicant later amended the petition to clarify it sought only an "automatic reassignment" (peremptory challenge) of the judge, not disqualification. The Appeals Board dismissed the disqualification portion and remanded the reassignment petition for determination by the presiding judge or a designee. The Board cautioned the attorney about the wasted time and resources due to the imprecise initial filing.

Petition for DisqualificationAutomatic ReassignmentWCJWCAB Rule 10453WCAB Rule 10452Peremptory ChallengePresiding WCJReport and RecommendationLab. Code § 5311Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10452
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1997

Rodriguez v. Hanslmaier

Andres Rodriguez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to challenge his guilty plea. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck issued a report recommending denial of the petition. The District Court, presided over by Judge John E. Sprizzo, adopted this report and recommendation. The court found that appellate counsel's strategy to challenge only the excessive sentence, rather than the guilty plea, was reasonable given the petitioner's prior agreement and the potential risk of a murder trial with a life sentence if the plea was vacated. The court also noted that the trial judge's decision on the plea's voluntariness and counsel's effectiveness was based on in-court observations and credibility assessments, making an appeal unlikely to succeed. Consequently, Rodriguez's petition was denied with prejudice.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate Counsel StrategyGuilty Plea ValidityExcessive Sentence ClaimMental CompetencyMalingering DefenseSixth AmendmentCriminal AppealFederal District Court
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2019

Winder v. Berryhill

Plaintiff Anne Winder challenged the Social Security Administration's denial of disability insurance benefits, alleging disability due to carpal tunnel syndrome, trigger fingers, bipolar disorder, and type II diabetes. The case, initially heard by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who found Winder not disabled, proceeded to the District Court after the Appeals Council denied review. Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields recommended affirming the Commissioner's decision, which the Plaintiff objected to, challenging the ALJ's severe impairment finding, evaluation of medical opinions from treating and examining physicians (Dr. Healy, Dr. Rudansky, Dr. Johnkutty) versus a medical expert (Dr. Fuchs), and credibility assessment. Presiding Judge Arthur D. Spatt reviewed the objections, adopting the R&R and affirming the Defendant's decision, finding no clear error in the ALJ's conclusions regarding the Plaintiff's functional capacity and ability to perform other work.

Social Security DisabilityAdministrative LawDisability BenefitsReport and RecommendationMedical Opinion EvaluationCredibility AssessmentResidual Functional CapacityFive-Step Sequential EvaluationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeBipolar Disorder
References
37
Case No. ADJ9859125, ADJ10002701, ADJ10647312
Regular
Sep 20, 2018

CHRISTOPHER RENFRO vs. YOUNG'S COMMERCIAL TRANSFER, NATIONAL INTERSTATE INSURANCE, SWIFT TRANSPORTATION

Applicant filed petitions to disqualify the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) alleging bias and prejudice. The Appeals Board denied these petitions as untimely because the trial had already commenced and witnesses were sworn in. Furthermore, the Board found no evidence in the record to support the applicant's claims of bias or prejudice against the WCJ. The matters are returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Peremptory ChallengeDisqualification of JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCAB Rule 10453Labor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641WCAB Rule 10452Bias and PrejudicePro Per ApplicantCumulative Trauma Injury
References
2
Case No. 8 N.Y.3d 892
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2007

In the Matter of Cagle v. Judge Motor Corporation

This case involves a motion for reargument of a motion for leave to appeal. The initial motion for leave to appeal was previously denied, as referenced in 7 NY3d 922. Kim M. Cagle, as Voluntary Administrator of the Estate of John R. Cagle, Deceased, is the appellant. Judge Motor Corporation and the Workers' Compensation Board are the respondents. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York considered the motion on February 5, 2007, and rendered its decision on March 22, 2007.

Motion for ReargumentLeave to AppealWorkers' CompensationEstateVoluntary Administrator
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Korman v. Sachs

This case concerns an appeal challenging the invalidation of Lorraine Backal's designating petition for Judge of the Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County. The Supreme Court initially ruled her petition invalid, citing fewer than the required 5,000 signatures under Election Law § 6-136 (2) (b). On appeal, while the court upheld the factual finding of insufficient signatures, it deemed the 5,000-signature requirement for Bronx County unconstitutional. The court found this disparity, compared to 2,000 signatures for counties of similar population outside New York City, violated the Equal Protection Clause. Consequently, the judgment invalidating Backal's petition was reversed, and the Board of Elections was directed to place her name on the ballot.

Election LawDesignating PetitionsConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionBallot AccessSignature RequirementsJudicial ElectionsNew York StateAppellate ReviewSurrogate's Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1977

Prate v. Freedman

This case involved white applicants who sued the City of Rochester, New York, alleging reverse discrimination in police officer hiring practices that favored minority applicants. The plaintiffs challenged a prior consent decree from Howard v. Freedman, which had established affirmative action measures. Chief Judge Curtin dismissed the consolidated actions, ruling it an impermissible collateral attack on the Howard decree due to the plaintiffs' failure to intervene timely. The court also held that the Constitution permits limited preferences for previously discriminated groups and dismissed pendent state law claims as superseded by federal law. Finally, the court awarded attorney fees to the defendant-intervenors, finding the plaintiffs' suit unreasonable and vexatious.

Reverse DiscriminationAffirmative ActionPolice RecruitmentEmployment LawCollateral Attack DoctrineConsent DecreeJudicial ReviewAttorney Fee AwardSubject Matter JurisdictionState Law Preemption
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connolly v. Williams

The court unanimously confirmed the determination of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, which found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and terminated his employment as a court officer. The misconduct involved unwanted physical contact and sexually suggestive remarks directed at three female co-workers. The petition challenging this determination was denied, and the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78 was dismissed. The court found substantial evidence supported the misconduct findings and that the penalty of dismissal was not unduly harsh. It also ruled that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the hearing officer's in camera review of investigative files or the denial of an adjournment to subpoena additional witnesses.

MisconductEmployment TerminationCourt OfficerSexual HarassmentDue ProcessDisciplinary ActionAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceFairness of Penalty
References
4
Case No. ADJ 4252592 (VNO 0411668)ADJ 3234790 (VNO 0443319) (MF)
Regular
May 04, 2012

HARRY WINSTON vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration by the City of Los Angeles challenging the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) finding of a single cumulative trauma injury. The applicant stipulated to two separate cumulative trauma periods for various injuries, but subsequent medical opinions from treating physicians concluded there was one continuous cumulative trauma injury spanning the applicant's entire employment. The ALJ amended the stipulations to align with this medical evidence and dismissed one of the applicant's cases as duplicative. Therefore, the ALJ recommends denying the employer's petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative Trauma InjuryAmended FindingsOpinion on DecisionStipulationsMedical EvaluationQualified Medical EvaluationAgreed Medical EvaluationDate of Injury
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 10,431 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