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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Straker v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

Carl B. Straker, a former NYCTA train operator, challenged his termination following a mandatory drug test, alleging he was unable to provide a urine sample due to a medical condition. His amended complaint cited procedural due process violations (Count I), racial discrimination and conspiracy (Count II), misrepresentation by NYCTA (Count III), and disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act (Count IV) against NYCTA, plus a breach of fair representation (Count V) against the Transit Workers Union. The court dismissed Count I, dismissed Count II with leave to amend, denied dismissal for Counts III and IV while demanding a more definite statement for Count III, and denied TWU’s motion to dismiss Count V, reinterpreting it as a state law claim. Metropolitan Transit Authority, though named, was dismissed as a party due to non-existence.

Employment DiscriminationProcedural Due ProcessRacial DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRehabilitation ActConspiracyDuty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintDrug Testing
References
52
Case No. ADJ7776330
Regular
May 30, 2014

STANLEY SILO vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

This case involves Stanley Silo's workers' compensation claim against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Silo's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was primarily due to the petition being untimely filed. The WCAB further indicated that even if timely, the petition would have been denied on its merits based on the WCJ's report.

ADJ7776330Petition for ReconsiderationWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardtimely-fileduntimelyDismissedWCJ Report and Recommendationadministrative law judgeApplicant
References
0
Case No. ADJ4386714 (RIV 0021250)
Regular
Apr 04, 2011

Clifford Carlson vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Clifford Carlson's petition for reconsideration of a decision that found the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) complied with a prior award and was not liable for penalties. Carlson had alleged the MTA failed to make timely disability payments, sought over 100 penalties, and claimed the judge's findings were fraudulent and unsupported by evidence. The Board also denied the MTA's petition for sanctions against Carlson, finding his conduct, though arguably aggressive, did not rise to the level of bad faith as defined by statute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClifford CarlsonLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transit AuthorityPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderPenaltiesLabor Code section 4650Timely Disability PaymentsCredit for Permanent Disability PaymentsSanctions
References
0
Case No. ADJ785936 (LAO 0744760), ADJ4630105 (LAO 0803706), ADJ3055310 (LAO 0803707), ADJ1933495 (LAO 0803708), ADJ589857 (LAO 0868645), ADJ826077 (BGN 0130247)
Regular
May 16, 2014

RANDA S. REID vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

This case involves Randa S. Reid's petition for reconsideration and removal against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not taken from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and adopting the Administrative Law Judge's report. Consequently, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed, and removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutoryProcedural DecisionsEvidentiary DecisionsNon-FinalRemovalSubstantial Prejudice
References
10
Case No. ADJ4639220 (MON 0324133)
Regular
Nov 03, 2014

ARMAND LA COUNT vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

In *La Count v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration. This action was taken due to the WCAB's belief that further study of the factual and legal issues was necessary for a just and reasoned decision. The Board granted reconsideration to allow sufficient opportunity to fully understand the case record and potentially conduct further proceedings. Consequently, all future filings are to be submitted in writing to the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not to district offices or via e-filing.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transit AuthorityPermissibly Self-InsuredDecision After ReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decisionCommissioners
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2001

Lamuraglia v. New York City Transit Authority

Vincenzo Lamuraglia, a construction worker, was injured after being struck by a New York City Transit Authority bus while working. He and his wife, Rosa Lamuraglia, sued the Transit Authority entities, which then initiated a third-party action against Vincenzo's employer, Premium Landscaping, Inc. A jury found the Transit Authority 65% at fault and Premium 35% at fault, awarding damages for lost earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of services. The Supreme Court reduced some of these awards. On appeal, the judgment was modified, granting a new trial on damages unless the plaintiffs agree to further reductions in their awards for pain and suffering and loss of services. The appellate court also rejected the Transit Authority's arguments regarding jury instructions on pedestrian duty of care and the emergency doctrine.

Personal InjuryNegligenceDamagesJury VerdictAppellate ReviewThird-Party LiabilityComparative FaultWorkplace AccidentBus AccidentDuty of Care
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Delacruz v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

Plaintiff Rafael Delacruz initiated an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) after sustaining injuries from a fall at a subway station. Delacruz erroneously served the MTA, believing it to be synonymous with the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), the actual operator of the station, due to the entities' intertwined branding and operational practices. The MTA routinely accepted and processed these documents, forwarding them to NYCTA's in-house counsel, Wallace D. Gossett, Esq., who proceeded to represent both organizations. After the expiration of the statute of limitations, the MTA filed a motion to dismiss, asserting improper service. The court denied the motion, finding that the MTA and NYCTA's collaborative conduct created a misleading impression, thereby equitably estopping them from claiming improper service.

Equitable EstoppelNotice of ClaimSummary Judgment MotionCPLR 3211 MotionCPLR 3212 MotionPublic Authorities LawMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNew York City Transit AuthorityMisnomer of PartyStatute of Limitations
References
47
Case No. ADJ7765356
Regular
Jul 26, 2011

WESLEY CAIN vs. LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Los Angeles Metropolitan Authority's petition for reconsideration. The Authority sought to alter a prior stipulation that awarded applicant Wesley Cain medical treatment for an admitted industrial injury. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the stipulation was a binding agreement. The WCJ determined the language of the stipulation clearly provided for ongoing medical care and the Authority provided no evidence to alter this entitlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeStipulation and Request for AwardMedical treatmentIndustrial injuryMetro train driverSuicide attemptContract principlesBinding agreement
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Samuelsen v. New York City Transit Authority

The case concerns a dispute between Local 100, Transport Workers Union of Greater New York (the Union) and the New York City Transit Authority (TA) and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Authority (MaBSTOA). The Union challenged a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a consolidation agreement that aimed to merge MaBSTOA and TA surface transit operations, arguing that these agreements violated Public Authorities Law § 1203-a (3) (b). This law prohibits MaBSTOA employees from becoming, 'for any purpose,' employees of the TA, acquiring civil service status, or becoming members of NYCERS. The Union contended that the agreements effectively made MaBSTOA employees into TA employees, thereby violating the statute. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting the validity of the agreements and procedural defenses. The motion court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court reversed this decision, agreeing with the Union's interpretation of the statute and finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action.

Workers' RightsCollective BargainingStatutory InterpretationPublic Authorities LawCivil ServiceEmployment LawUnion DisputeConsolidation AgreementEmployer LiabilityDismissal Reversal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2012

Thompson v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The defendants, Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority, MTA Staten Island Railway, and Tyesha Witt, appealed a Supreme Court order denying their motion for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury action as time-barred. The plaintiff's decedent was injured in a railway accident in February 2008 and filed a complaint in March 2009. The defendants argued the action was time-barred under Public Authorities Law § 1276, which mandates a one-year-and-30-day statute of limitations. The plaintiff, Sarah Thompson, argued the statute of limitations was tolled under CPLR 208 due to the decedent's alleged

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsTime-barredCPLR 208Insanity TollPublic Authorities LawRailway AccidentAppellate ReviewLegal Procedure
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 3,690 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