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. ADJ3632525 (SBR 0271054) ADJ4163174 (SBR 0271055)
Regular
Nov 08, 2016

RANDAL DELAO vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves two industrial injuries on June 13, 1996, and July 31, 1996, to the applicant's back, psyche, and internal systems. The defendant sought reconsideration of a decision that awarded 100% permanent disability for the July 31, 1996 injury, subsuming a prior 45.3% rating for the June 13, 1996 injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to amend a finding of fact to correct the date of injury referenced for the 100% permanent disability award. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the disability from the July 31, 1996 injury is subsumed within the 100% permanent disability attributed to the June 13, 1996 injury.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentReconsiderationDate of InjuryCompensable ConsequenceAgreed Medical EvaluatorsMultiple Disabilities TableSubsumed DisabilityPermanent Total Disability
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04461
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2025

Joya v. E 31 Partners, LLC

Naun Joya, an employee of Blue Stone Concrete Corp., was injured at a Brooklyn worksite when a plywood sheet struck his head while disassembling a fence. He filed suit against E 31 Partners, LLC and Twin Group Associates, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted Joya's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, denying Joya's motion. The appellate court found that Joya failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accident was an elevation-related hazard or gravity-related risk encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1), specifically lacking details on the height of the fall or the necessity of securing devices.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkFalling ObjectPlywoodConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewElevation HazardGravity RiskTriable Issues of Fact
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1998

Claim of Baldo v. Daily News

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision setting the date of disablement for claimant Joseph Baldo, a former newspaper pressman who suffered from work-related lung cancer, as July 29, 1992. Baldo's widow filed for death benefits after his passing in 1994, leading to a dispute between workers' compensation carriers over liability. The appealing carrier contended that the disablement date should be earlier, citing diagnoses in 1990 or 1991. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's discretion in selecting a disablement date and finding no medical evidence to establish disability prior to July 29, 1992, even though earlier diagnoses existed.

Workers' Compensation LawLung CancerDate of DisablementAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCarrier ResponsibilityOccupational DiseaseMedical EvidenceClaimant DisabilityBoard Discretion
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 1993

31 West 47th Street Co. v. Bevona

The case involves a petition to stay arbitration filed by 31 West 47th Street Co. and Lipton against Local 32B-32J, AFL-CIO. The dispute arose after 31 West stopped remitting membership benefit fund contributions, asserting the collective bargaining agreement had expired. The agreement contained an 'Evergreen Clause' stating it would remain in effect until a successor agreement was negotiated or cancelled with a three-day written notice, which 31 West failed to provide. The Supreme Court initially granted the stay, but the appellate court reversed, denying the petition and directing arbitration, emphasizing the 'Evergreen Clause' and that termination issues are for the arbitrator.

Collective bargaining agreementArbitration clauseEvergreen clauseUnion contributionsContract terminationAppellate reversalLabor relationsEmployer-employee disputeCommercial buildingNew York law
References
4
Case No. ADJ4035339
Regular
Sep 15, 2008

MARIA WILLIAMSON vs. AVEX, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Reconsideration granted; decision of July 11, 2008, as amended July 31, 2008, affirmed except award amended to reflect payment to applicant from Avex, Inc., not SCIF.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria WilliamsonAvex Inc.State Compensation Insurance FundADJ4035339OXN 0146913Opinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Water Tunnel Contractors

A motion was filed seeking to compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept two notices of appeal, dated July 10, 1978, and September 22, 1978. The court partially granted the motion, directing the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept the notice of appeal dated July 10, 1978. However, the motion was denied with respect to the notice of appeal dated September 22, 1978. The decision was rendered without costs to either party. Justices Mahoney, Greenblott, Main, Mikoll, and Herlihy concurred with the ruling.

Motion PracticeAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionCourt OrderPartial GrantNotice of AppealLegal CostsConcurring Opinion
References
2
Case No. 529937
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2020

Matter of Wolkiewicz v. Lincare Holdings Inc.

Claimant Julie Wolkiewicz was injured in June 2006 and filed for workers' compensation benefits. The employer and carrier (Lincare Holdings Inc.) sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund due to alleged preexisting physical impairments under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d). Despite a pretrial conference statement purportedly reflecting an agreement for § 15 (8) (d) to apply, the Special Funds Group later moved to discharge the Fund, arguing that the carrier failed to submit medical evidence by the July 1, 2010 statutory cut-off. The Workers' Compensation Board agreed, disavowing any prior precedent suggesting otherwise, and concluded that the carrier had not established a viable claim for reimbursement. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the carrier's arguments regarding the preclusive effect of the pretrial conference statement and promissory estoppel, emphasizing the carrier's failure to submit timely medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPretrial ConferenceMedical Evidence DeadlineStatutory ComplianceAppellate ReviewBoard PrecedentArbitrary and CapriciousPromissory Estoppel
References
14
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02373 [170 AD3d 1227]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2019

Simon v. Granite Bldg. 2, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning an action for personal injuries and wrongful death. The plaintiff, Charles Simon, individually and as administrator of Julie Simon's estate, sued Granite Building 2, LLC, Kulka Contracting, LLC, and FXR Construction, Inc., after Julie Simon died and Charles Simon was injured in a construction site accident. The incident occurred when their vehicle slid on ice in an unfinished parking garage, causing it to fall into an excavation pit. A jury found Granite and Kulka negligent. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, concluding that issues regarding the 'storm in progress' doctrine and the construction manager's liability were properly submitted to the jury. The court also upheld the reduced damages awards as not materially deviating from reasonable compensation.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathConstruction Site AccidentNegligenceLabor LawPremises LiabilityJury VerdictDamagesAppellate ReviewCPLR 4404
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arias-Mieses v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Carlos Arias-Mieses, a pro se plaintiff, sued his former employer, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), under Title VII for discriminatory termination, unequal employment terms, and retaliation. CSXT moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was time-barred by the statute of limitations. The Court found that Arias-Mieses's termination on July 9, 2007, started the 300-day period for filing with the EEOC. His complaint was not forwarded to the EEOC until July 31, 2008, which was beyond the 300-day limit. The Court denied equitable tolling or estoppel and granted CSXT's motion to dismiss because the claim was time-barred.

Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Employment DiscriminationRetaliationDiscriminatory TerminationStatute of LimitationsEEOC FilingEquitable TollingMotion to DismissPro Se Litigant
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 1,028 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