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. ADJ 7906635, ADJ 7906741
Regular
May 02, 2016

LINDA ARMS vs. COUNTY OF KERN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of Kern's petition for reconsideration. The County sought to overturn an award regarding the reasonable cost of two medical-legal reports from Dr. Ali Mostafavi. The Board adopted the findings of the administrative law judge, who found the attested hours and resulting fee schedule calculations for the reports to be reasonable. The County failed to demonstrate that the time spent by Dr. Mostafavi on the reports was unreasonable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCounty of KernLinda ArmsADJ 7906635ADJ 7906741Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeFindings Orders and AwardQualified Medical ExaminerQME
References
2
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05656 [174 AD3d 704]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2019

Matter of Linda H.A. (Belluci)

In this case, Linda H.A. appealed a Supreme Court judgment that appointed an independent guardian for her person and property under Mental Hygiene Law article 81. The proceeding was initiated by the Executive Director of North Shore University Hospital, alleging Linda H.A. was an incapacitated person requiring a guardian. Following a hearing, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the petition. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, finding clear and convincing evidence of Linda H.A.'s incapacity. The court based its decision on testimony revealing her inability to provide for personal needs and property management, delusional beliefs, a history of eviction, and refusal of medical and housing assistance.

GuardianshipIncapacitationMental Hygiene Law Article 81Appellate ReviewPersonal Needs ManagementProperty ManagementClear and Convincing EvidenceDelusional BeliefsEviction HistoryRefusal of Care
References
7
Case No. 94 Civ. 4397
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 1998

Hamilton v. Garlock, Inc.

Plaintiff Linda Hamilton, widow of George Hamilton, filed an asbestos claim against several defendants, including Atlas Turner Inc., in the Southern District of New York in 1994. After a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, defendant Atlas filed post-trial motions, including a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court previously denied the jurisdictional motion with leave to renew. Upon a fuller record, the court now grants Atlas's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that Plaintiff failed to establish that New York law provides a basis for exercising jurisdiction over Atlas under CPLR § 301 ("doing business") or CPLR § 302 (long-arm statute). The court concluded that Hamilton's injury did not occur in New York, but in Virginia, where his asbestos exposure took place, thus failing the long-arm statute's requirements. Consequently, the other post-trial motions from Atlas were not considered.

Personal JurisdictionAsbestos ExposureMotion to DismissDiversity JurisdictionNew York CPLR 301New York CPLR 302Tortious ActDoing BusinessLong-Arm StatuteSitus of Injury
References
38
Case No. CV-23-2205
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Linda Epstein

Linda Epstein, a former meat wrapper, with an established claim for work-related injuries, was classified with a permanent partial disability. Prior to the exhaustion of her indemnity benefits, she requested an extreme hardship redetermination under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3). After an initial denial by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed the decision and granted the reclassification. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing that Epstein failed to demonstrate undue extreme hardship. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence that without her workers' compensation benefits, Epstein's financial circumstances would be dire, considering her age (75), limited education, and health issues.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityExtreme HardshipWage-Earning CapacityReclassificationFinancial HardshipSocial Security DisabilityPension BenefitsAppellate ReviewAge Factor
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02070 [170 AD3d 967]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2019

Gomez v. Kitchen & Bath by Linda Burkhardt, Inc.

The plaintiff, a painter, sustained personal injuries when a defective A-frame ladder, provided by his supervisor, collapsed, causing him to fall. He commenced an action against the general contractor, Kitchen & Bath by Linda Burkhardt, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability, prompting the defendant's appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff's deposition testimony established a prima facie case of a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation. Furthermore, the court determined that the hospital records submitted by the defendant to oppose summary judgment were inadmissible hearsay, as they were not attributed to the plaintiff and were not pertinent to his diagnosis or treatment.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentGeneral Contractor LiabilityDefective EquipmentHearsay EvidenceBusiness Records ExceptionAppellate ReviewWorker Safety
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Linda FF.

This case involves an appeal from Family Court orders regarding a respondent's violation of supervision orders concerning her two children, Linda FF. and Charles FF. The respondent had previously consented to neglect findings for both children, who were placed in petitioner's custody, and was placed under supervision with conditions including family counseling, parenting education, and anger management. Petitioner initiated violation proceedings alleging the respondent failed to comply with these terms by missing classes and exhibiting a negative attitude, and Family Court found a willful violation, revoking the supervision orders and imposing a suspended 45-day jail term. On appeal, the respondent argued that Family Ct Act § 1072, used for enforcement, only applies to supervision orders issued under § 1054, not her orders which were likely under § 1057, but the appellate court interpreted this as legislative oversight and allowed enforcement under § 1072. The court affirmed the Family Court's determination, finding ample evidence of willful and unjustifiable violation of the supervision order terms.

Family LawChild NeglectSupervision OrderViolation ProceedingFamily Court Act § 1072Legislative OversightParenting ClassesAnger ManagementCustodyWillful Violation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snead v. Interim Healthcare of Rochester, Inc.

Plaintiff Linda Snead filed an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) against her employer, referred to as 'Defendant,' for unpaid wages and overtime. The parties reached a settlement of $20,000, comprising $6,250 for unpaid wages, $6,250 for liquidated damages, and $7,500 for attorney's fees. The Court granted approval of the settlement agreement, finding its non-disparagement clause and mutual release provisions fair and reasonable. Additionally, the Court approved the attorney's fees, recognizing counsel's diligent efforts, the moderate complexity of the case, and the public policy importance of ensuring legal representation for low-income individuals in labor disputes.

FLSANYLLSettlement ApprovalUnpaid WagesOvertime PayLiquidated DamagesAttorney's FeesHome Health AideWage and Hour LawNon-disparagement Clause
References
81
Case No. ADJ2740563 (GRO 0027673) ADJ2522146 (GRO 0028098)
Regular
Mar 19, 2012

LINDA STEVENS vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS

Federal Express sought reconsideration of a WCJ's award to Linda Stevens for a psychological injury as a consequence of her prior orthopedic injuries, arguing insufficient medical evidence and improper diagnostic testing. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely filed. The Board found the petition was received by the Appeals Board on January 17, 2012, which was after the January 13, 2012 deadline for reconsideration following service on December 19, 2011. This procedural defect was jurisdictional, requiring dismissal regardless of the petition's merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryPsycheCompensable ConsequenceOrthopedic InjuryAgreed Medical ExaminerSubstantial Medical EvidenceTemporary DisabilityElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2008

Garced v. Clinton Arms Associates

Plaintiff Troy Garced suffered burn injuries on premises controlled by defendant Clinton Arms Associates, initiating a lawsuit in Bronx County based on his alleged residency there prior to incarceration. The defendant successfully moved to change venue to Nassau County, arguing that the plaintiff lacked proper Bronx residency. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's subsequent motion to renew, finding that the new evidence was not sufficiently justified as previously unavailable. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to renew and dismissed the appeal from the initial venue change, concluding that plaintiff failed to establish residency in Bronx County. A dissenting opinion argued that the plaintiff's affidavit and medical records created a factual dispute warranting a hearing on the residency issue.

Venue DisputeResidency RequirementIncarceration ImpactMotion to RenewSection 8 HousingAppellate ReviewBronx CountyNassau CountyPersonal InjuryBurn Injury
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meyers v. Astrue

Plaintiff Linda Meyers sought judicial review of a denial of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio recommended granting the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying the defendant's, remanding the case for benefits calculation. District Judge Richard J. Arcara adopted this recommendation after a de novo review. The court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by concluding the plaintiff was not disabled from March 2004 through March 2006, specifically by failing to properly apply the treating physician rule to Dr. Lewis's opinion, which consistently described the plaintiff as totally disabled due to cervical disc disease and nerve root compression.

Social Security DisabilitySupplemental Security IncomeDisability Benefits ReviewTreating Physician RuleAdministrative Law Judge ErrorResidual Functional CapacityCervical Spine DisorderNerve Root CompressionVocational ExpertSedentary Work Limitations
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 419 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