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. ADJ10124565
Regular
Dec 13, 2018

KATHLEEN MCKINNEY vs. ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR OF SAN FRANCISCO, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a petition for reconsideration filed by Kathleen McKinney. This denial affirms a prior September 23, 2016, decision which was incorporated by reference. The WCAB found no grounds to overturn its previous ruling after reviewing the case record. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration is formally denied.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationDENYING PETITIONGranting Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationENTERPRISE RENT A CARYORK RISK SERVICES GROUPADJ10124565San Jose District OfficeRICHARD L. NEWMAN
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07357
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2017

Matter of Kathleen NN. (Dennis NN.)

This case involves three neglect proceedings initiated by the Sullivan County Department of Family Services and the Attorney for the Child against Dennis NN. (father), Justin EE. (mother's boyfriend), and Angelica FF. (mother) concerning Kathleen NN., an alleged neglected child. The Family Court of Sullivan County initially dismissed all three petitions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the dismissal concerning Dennis NN., finding that his actions of dropping the child during an altercation placed her in imminent danger of harm, thus granting the neglect petition against him and remitting the matter for a dispositional hearing. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissals against Justin EE. and Angelica FF., concluding that there was insufficient evidence to prove neglect or that Justin EE. was a legal custodian at the time of the incident, and that the mother's conduct did not demonstrate imminent danger to the child.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActImminent DangerParental ResponsibilitySafety Plan Non-ComplianceAppellate DivisionChild CustodyPreponderance of EvidencePhysical AltercationChild Protective Report
References
17
Case No. 534827
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Kathleen Casacci

The Appellate Division affirmed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found claimant Kathleen Casacci, a dentist with a permanent partial disability, had no actual or causally-related reduced earnings. Casacci filed a workers' compensation claim in 2015 for work-related repetitive-use injuries, leading to a cervical discectomy and a return to part-time work. While a WCLJ initially found a 30% loss of wage-earning capacity, the Board disagreed on actual reduced earnings, citing inconsistencies in her financial documentation as an S Corporation officer. The court upheld the Board's determination, emphasizing the Board's authority to resolve factual issues based on witness credibility and evidence, particularly regarding the claimant's active role in her dental practice despite reporting reduced personal income.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityReduced EarningsWage-Earning CapacityOccupational DiseaseCervical DiscectomyCredibilityFinancial DocumentationDental PracticeAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03589 [150 AD3d 1377]
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2017

Matter of McKinney v. United States Roofing Corp.

Donald McKinney, a roofer, suffered a work-related back injury. His claim for workers' compensation benefits was established, but payments were later suspended by the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) due to his failure to provide evidence of attachment to the labor market, despite being directed to do so multiple times. The WCB also denied a request for a lumbar discogram because the submission form was incomplete. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the WCB's decision, finding that McKinney had proper notice regarding the labor market attachment issue, that the WCB's finding of a moderate disability was supported by substantial evidence, and that the denial of the discogram was justified given the incomplete request.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market AttachmentDisability BenefitsLumbar DiscogramMedical AuthorizationAppellate ReviewBenefit SuspensionIndependent Medical ExaminationWork-Related InjuryNew York Law
References
9
Case No. CA 15-01567
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2016

ST. JOHN, KATHLEEN v. WESTWOOD-SQUIBB PHARMACEUTICALS, IN

Plaintiff Kathleen St. John initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action for injuries sustained while preparing lighting equipment in a parking lot owned by the defendant, Westwood-Squibb Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The plaintiff alleged the accident occurred due to debris, leading to a trip or slip. Defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was initially denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by partially granting the defendant's motion, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action premised on alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), (e) (1), and (e) (2), finding these regulations inapplicable to the case facts. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action based on 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (b) and the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, citing unresolved issues of control and constructive notice.

Labor LawCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstruction SiteDangerous ConditionOut-of-Possession OwnerCollateral EstoppelAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKinney v. Commissioner of New York State Department of Hearth

Plaintiffs Mary McKinney and Mechler Hall Community Services, Inc. sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the New York State Department of Health from implementing recommendations to close Westchester Square Medical Center (WSMC) and other facilities. Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, citing failure to state a cause of action, lack of standing, and failure to join a necessary party. The court initially granted a TRO for WSMC but, after reviewing arguments on standing and the constitutionality of the Enabling Legislation, denied the plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief. The court also granted the defendants' cross-motion, dismissing the complaint, finding no constitutional infirmity in the legislation that delegated power to the Commission on Health Care Facilities in the 21st Century to make recommendations for health care system streamlining.

Constitutional LawSeparation of PowersDelegation of Legislative AuthorityHealth Care Facilities ClosureTemporary Restraining OrderSummary JudgmentTaxpayer StandingCommon-Law StandingNew York State GovernmentAdministrative Agency Powers
References
31
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07121 [211 AD3d 1293]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

Matter of Casacci v. Kathleen Casacci DDS, PC

Claimant, a dentist, filed for workers' compensation benefits in 2015 due to work-related repetitive-use injuries, with her claim established for neck and back conditions. Despite undergoing surgery and returning to work part-time, the Workers' Compensation Board determined she had no actual reduced earnings between April 2016 and January 2021, and failed to prove causally-related reduced earnings. This decision overturned an earlier WCLJ finding that classified her with a permanent partial disability and directed continuing reduced earnings payments. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing its authority to resolve factual issues and assess witness credibility. The court highlighted inconsistencies between claimant's testimony of reduced income and her dental practice's increasing business revenue as reflected in corporate tax filings, supporting the Board's finding of no actual reduced earnings.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityReduced EarningsWage-Earning CapacityOccupational DiseaseCervical DiscectomyCredibility AssessmentBusiness IncomeCorporate Tax ReturnsS Corporation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKinney v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Barbara M. McKinney, a pro se plaintiff, sued Eastman Kodak Co. for employment discrimination. She later moved to amend her complaint to include claims for age discrimination under ADEA and New York State Human Rights Law, sex discrimination under Title VII, FMLA violations, and retaliation under ADEA. The court partially granted and partially denied the motion. The court denied leave to amend for sex discrimination, FMLA violations, and the disparate impact theory of age discrimination, finding them not reasonably related to her original EEOC complaint. The motion was granted only to allow McKinney to restate her disparate treatment age discrimination claim and her retaliation claim under the ADEA, specifically for events occurring on or after April 28, 1995, while denying claims based on earlier events that did not constitute a continuing violation.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationDisparate TreatmentMotion to Amend ComplaintEEOC ExhaustionContinuing Violation DoctrineEmployment LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 15Title VIIADEA
References
34
Case No. ADJ4146224 (SBR 0296668) ADJ1272169 (SBR 0296667)
Regular
Oct 28, 2013

KATHLEEN ZAMANJAHROMI vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL

This case involves Kathleen Zamanjahromi seeking increased permanent disability benefits for an industrial injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Kaiser Foundation Hospital's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB affirmed the finding of good cause to reopen a prior stipulated award for new and further disability, resulting in a 96% permanent disability rating. The defendant's argument that SB 899's apportionment provisions applied to the original award was rejected. The WCAB clarified that SB 899's apportionment applies to new and further disability but cannot retroactively alter prior findings.

Petition for ReconsiderationNew and Further DisabilityLabor Code Section 5410Senate Bill 899ApportionmentStipulated AwardReopeningFinal OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAgreed Medical Examiner
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 1998

Rodgers v. 72nd Street Associates

This opinion details the court's application of CPLR article 50-B for structuring periodic payments of future damages awarded to plaintiffs Frank and Kathleen Rodgers. Following a jury verdict where the Rodgers prevailed in their accident claims against the defendant, the court addressed complex calculations for past and future pain and suffering, lost wages, and annuity losses, accounting for Mr. Rodgers' comparative negligence. Justice Solomon resolved disputes regarding the discounting of lump-sum future awards, determined attorney's fees on periodic payments, and established appropriate discount rates based on actuarial practices and Treasury note rates. The final judgment specifies the amounts for past and future damages, attorney's fees for future payments, and the present value of the annuity contract the defendant is required to purchase.

periodic paymentsCPLR article 50-Bfuture damagesattorney's feeslump-sum awardsdiscount ratesannuity contractcomparative negligencepersonal injurystructured settlements
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 88 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