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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davidson Pipe Supply Co. v. Wyoming County Industrial Development Agency

This case addresses whether a construction project involving an industrial development agency (WCIDA) qualifies as a 'public improvement' under State Finance Law § 137, which would mandate the securing of payment bonds. Plaintiff Davidson, a supplier, was not paid for materials provided to a subcontractor on an energy cogeneration plant project developed by Indeck Energy Resources with WCIDA's assistance. Davidson sued WCIDA and Indeck for their alleged failure to require a bond. The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Davidson, but the Appellate Division reversed, concluding the project was not a public improvement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, emphasizing that WCIDA's ownership was primarily for tax benefits, with the private entity, Indeck, bearing the economic risks and benefits. Consequently, the court held that the project was not a public improvement under the statute, and the complaint against the defendants was dismissed.

Industrial Development AgencyPublic ImprovementState Finance LawPayment BondLien LawConstruction ProjectPrivate EntityTax BenefitsCogeneration PlantAppellate Review
References
4
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. ADJ4522242 (VNO 0452421)
Regular
Feb 02, 2012

PAUL ALLGOOD vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, administered by TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

Lien claimants sought to disqualify the Workers' Compensation Judge, alleging bias against them. The WCAB dismissed the petition, finding it was filed significantly past the 10-day deadline after the notice of hearing. Even if timely, the Board stated they would have denied the petition on its merits. Therefore, the lien claimants' petition to disqualify Judge Linda Davidson-Guerra was dismissed.

Lien claimant disqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10452Petition for DisqualificationReport and Recommendationuntimely petitionbias against lien claimantsAdministrative Law JudgeLinda Davidson-Guerra
References
1
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02083 [181 AD3d 949]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2020

Klingsberg v. Council of Sch. Supervisors & Adm'rs-Local 1

The plaintiff, Joan Klingsberg, a tenured principal, was removed from her payroll by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) due to financial improprieties. She was represented by Charity Guerra, a staff attorney from her union, the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators-Local 1 (CSA), during disciplinary proceedings. After it was revealed Guerra sought a position with the DOE, Klingsberg declined a new attorney and represented herself. Although the arbitrator upheld termination, the DOE Chancellor overturned it, imposing a six-month suspension and returning Klingsberg to a non-administrative teaching position with back pay, followed by a $200,000 settlement. Klingsberg later sued Guerra for legal malpractice and violation of Judiciary Law § 487, alleging a conflict of interest. The Supreme Court granted Guerra's motion to dismiss, finding the action preempted by federal law and barred by a prior release agreement.

Legal MalpracticeJudiciary Law § 487Federal Labor Management Relations ActPreemptionCollective BargainingConflict of InterestRelease AgreementMotion to DismissAppellate DivisionQueens County
References
5
Case No. ADJ7972970
Regular
Sep 01, 2015

GEORGE GUERRA vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by George Guerra regarding a workers' compensation claim against the County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition and the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Based on the record and the WCJ's reasoning, the WCAB has denied Guerra's petition for reconsideration. The order denying reconsideration was dated and filed on September 1, 2015.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportdeny reconsiderationCounty of Los Angeles Sheriff's Departmentself-insuredYork Risk Services GroupADJ7972970Marina del Rey District OfficeAllan Senkow
References
0
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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 172 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