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. ADJ6824732
Regular
Sep 06, 2012

SHEILA CORREIA, KENNETH BURNETT (Deceased) vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, CHARTIS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns a deceased worker, Kenneth Burnett, diagnosed with mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure. The sole issue was determining the date of last injurious exposure to establish liability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the judge's decision. The judge found the applicant's medical expert's opinion on a five to ten-year latency period to be more persuasive than the defendant's expert's twenty-year period. This led to a finding that the decedent's last injurious asbestos exposure occurred between 1996 and 2001, during his employment with Verizon.

MesotheliomaLatency PeriodAsbestos ExposureDate of Last Injurious ExposureLC §5500.5LC §5412Verizon CommunicationsSedgwick Claims Management ServicesDr. LurosDr. Raybin
References
0
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06625
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2018

Matter of Kenneth J. v. Lesley B.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Family Court order that suspended all visitation and contact between a father, Kenneth J., and his child. The Family Court had granted summary judgment to the mother, Lesley B., without a hearing. The Appellate Division found this improper, emphasizing that modification of custody or visitation requires a hearing, except in emergencies. The court further ruled that the Family Court improperly considered unsworn, uncertified, and hearsay reports and letters from mental health services and therapists, which were inadmissible and did not justify the drastic measure of suspending parental contact. The matter was remanded, and the father's petitions for enforcement and modification were restored, along with the mother's petition.

Family LawCustodyVisitationSummary JudgmentDue ProcessIn Camera InterviewAdmissibility of EvidenceHearsayForensic EvaluationChild's Best Interests
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gottlieb v. Kenneth D. Laub & Co.

This case examines whether Labor Law § 198 (1-a), which grants attorney’s fees in wage claims, applies broadly to all wage claims or is restricted to violations of Labor Law article 6. Plaintiff Seymour Gottlieb, a former real estate salesman, sought unpaid commissions from Kenneth D. Laub & Company, asserting a common-law contract claim and a violation of Labor Law § 198. The lower courts awarded attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that the attorney’s fees and liquidated damages remedies under Labor Law § 198 (1-a) are exclusively for wage claims based on substantive violations of Labor Law article 6. The Court emphasized that the statute’s plain language, legislative history, and purpose, along with common-law principles against awarding attorney’s fees, limit its applicability to claims arising directly from article 6.

Labour LawWage ClaimAttorney's FeesLiquidated DamagesContract ClaimStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentCommon LawArticle 6Employment Law
References
6
Case No. 535098
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Kenneth Attreed

The claimant, Kenneth Attreed, sustained knee injuries at work and filed for workers' compensation benefits. Initially, a WCLJ established the claim and granted temporary total and partial disability awards. Following a subsequent hearing where the employer's carrier raised issues of voluntary withdrawal and lack of labor market attachment, the Workers' Compensation Board modified the WCLJ's determination, finding that the claimant voluntarily removed himself from the labor market and thus had no compensable lost time from September 28, 2021, onward. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, modified the Board's decision, agreeing that the claimant's withdrawal was voluntary but finding that the Board erred in determining the start date of no labor market attachment. The court ruled that the applicable date should be October 25, 2021, when the claimant testified, not September 27, 2021, when the issue was raised. The matter was remitted to the Board to address eligibility for indemnity benefits subsequent to the claimant's October 20, 2021, surgery.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketLabor Market AttachmentTemporary Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityAppellate DivisionThird Judicial DepartmentClaimant AppealIndemnity BenefitsKnee Injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ4347932 (SAC 0166469)
Regular
Sep 13, 2012

KENNETH MCFARLIN (Deceased) vs. STANALAND SHOWER PANS, INC., CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to award applicant's attorney the full $4,500 fee. The Board determined that the attorney's fee was earned for representing the injured worker on accrued benefits, which passed to his heirs. Since the heirs agreed to split the net settlement proceeds equally after fees, the attorney was entitled to the entire fee from the $30,000 Compromise and Release. This decision amends a prior order that split the attorney's fee between the heirs.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDKENNETH MCFARLIN (Deceased)STANALAND SHOWER PANSINC.CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANYGALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICESADJ4347932SAC 0166469OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONTHOMAS L. PLUMB
References
0
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06179 [221 AD3d 1382]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2023

Pierce v. Archer Daniels Midland, Co.

Debra D. Pierce, as an individual and administrator of her deceased husband's estate, appealed a Supreme Court order that dismissed her claims against Archer Daniels Midland, Co. (ADM) and ADM Milling, Co. Her husband was fatally injured during employment, leading to claims including negligence and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court had granted dismissal based on Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity, as Pierce had received workers' compensation benefits naming ADM Milling as the employer. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Pierce's direct claims against ADM Milling due to the finality of the Workers' Compensation Board decision. However, the Court reversed the dismissal of future cross-claims against ADM Milling, citing the grave injury exception allowing third-party actions. Additionally, the dismissal of the complaint and cross-claims against ADM was reversed as premature, given unresolved factual issues regarding corporate control.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityGrave Injury ExceptionParent Corporation LiabilityMotion to DismissCollateral AttackJudicial EstoppelThird-Party ActionIndemnification and ContributionEmployment LawWrongful Death
References
18
Case No. 121778, 121782
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2018

Jimerson v. State of New York

Claimants, Joshua A. Jimerson (as Administrator of Patricia A. John's Estate) and Kenneth Vanaernam, sought damages for wrongful death and injuries after falling through a hole on the Red House Bridge (RHB). The bridge, built by the State of New York in 1930, is located within the sovereign land of the Seneca Nation of Indians. Despite a history of confusion regarding maintenance responsibility, a 1976 Memorandum of Understanding and a 2007 Project Specific Agreement had indicated the State's involvement. The Court of Claims initially denied the claimants' motion for partial summary judgment on the State's duty to maintain the bridge. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision, ruling that Highway Law § 53 unambiguously obligates the State to maintain highways and bridges it constructed on Indian reservation land, thereby establishing the State's statutory duty.

Wrongful DeathPersonal InjuryHighway MaintenanceBridge CollapseState ResponsibilityStatutory DutySummary JudgmentIndian ReservationNew York State Department of TransportationSeneca Nation of Indians
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 1997

In re Sadie K.

The petitioner sought to terminate the respondent's parental rights due to permanent neglect of his three children, Sadie, Kenneth, and Christina. Family Court found that the respondent had sexually abused Christina and neglected Sadie and Kenneth, ordering his participation in various therapeutic programs, including a sex-offender program. Despite the petitioner's diligent efforts to reunite the family, the respondent failed to meaningfully participate, particularly by denying the sexual abuse, not engaging in the sex-offender program, and failing to maintain contact with his children. The Family Court terminated parental rights for Sadie and Kenneth (Christina had reached the age of majority). The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, concluding that clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that the petitioner made diligent efforts and the respondent failed to plan for the children's future.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationSexual Abuse DenialChild Welfare AgencyFamily Court OrderAppellate AffirmationDiligent EffortsParent-Child ReunificationSex Offender ProgramParenting Skills
References
9
Case No. ADJ13262420
Regular
Oct 20, 2025

JOSE MORALES vs. KENNETH C. RAY, COMPASS DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, INC., BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted defendant Kenneth C. Ray's petition for reconsideration of an Amended Findings and Award (F&A) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 15, 2025. The original F&A had found that applicant Jose Morales was employed by Kenneth C. Ray and sustained an industrial injury but was not employed by Barrett Business Services, Inc. The Board rescinded the F&A and substituted a new F&A, affirming Morales's employment by Kenneth C. Ray and not by BBSI. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings under a new WCJ to determine issues regarding employment with Compass Development and Construction Inc., the participation of the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund, and the specific body parts injured.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings and Awardarising out of and in the course of employmentemploymentliabilitythird-party administratorsubstantial evidencecausationdeposition testimony
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1984

In Re McFarlin's Inc.

McFarlin's Inc., a debtor in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, objected to a claim by the Amalgamated Insurance Fund for $57,969.76, arising from withdrawal liabilities under ERISA, seeking first priority as an expense of administration. The creditor's committee sought to reclassify this as a general unsecured claim. McFarlin's Inc. ceased its union-covered operations after filing for bankruptcy. The court, referencing National Labor Relations Board v. Bildisco, determined that a collective bargaining agreement is not an enforceable contract after a bankruptcy petition is filed until formal acceptance. Therefore, the withdrawal liability claim, stemming from the rejection of the executory contract (the pension plan), arose immediately before the bankruptcy petition filing. The court ordered the claim to be treated as a general unsecured claim, rejecting the Fund's assertion of administrative priority.

BankruptcyERISAMultiemployer Pension PlanWithdrawal LiabilityExecutory ContractAdministrative ExpenseUnsecured ClaimCollective Bargaining AgreementChapter 11Debtor-in-possession
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 666 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