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. ADJ288780
Regular
Jun 10, 2010

MARIA CAMPOS vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/MARTIN LUTHER KING HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Maria Campos's Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCALJ) in its decision. The specific grounds for the denial are detailed within the WCALJ's report. Therefore, the applicant's request to reconsider the previous decision was unsuccessful.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria CamposCounty of Los AngelesMartin Luther King HospitalTristar Risk ManagementADJ288780LAO 0859849Petition for ReconsiderationDenying ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. 535717
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Denis Campos

The Appellate Division of the Third Judicial Department affirmed decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board concerning a claim filed by Denis Campos. Claimant Campos, a construction worker, sought benefits after an accident. The Board had ruled that American Zurich Insurance Company was the liable workers' compensation carrier due to an improperly canceled policy, as per Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5). American Zurich's appeal, including a request for reconsideration and full Board review, was denied because they failed to present crucial evidence to the Workers' Compensation Law Judge despite prior directives. The Appellate Division found no abuse of discretion in the Board's refusal to consider newly submitted evidence on administrative appeal and affirmed the denial of reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Carrier LiabilityPolicy CancellationAdministrative ReviewAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulesJudicial DiscretionConstruction AccidentLadder FallThird Judicial Department
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Maria A.

This case involves an appeal from an order of disposition by the Family Court, Kings County, dated April 19, 1979, which found appellant Maria to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her with the Division for Youth, Title III, for 18 months. Maria argued that her placement was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that less coercive alternatives were not considered. The delinquency finding stemmed from Maria's admission to acts constituting second-degree robbery and second-degree manslaughter. At the dispositional hearing, conflicting expert opinions were presented regarding the appropriate placement, with court-appointed experts favoring a more secure facility due to concerns about Maria's impulse control, while appellant's experts suggested an open residential setting. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding no basis for reversal after balancing the child's needs and community protection.

Juvenile DelinquencyFamily CourtOrder of DispositionPlacementDivision for YouthRobberyManslaughterPreponderance of EvidenceDispositional HearingResidential Facility
References
1
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08663
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2017

Matter of Campo v. City of Mount Vernon

The petitioner, John Campo, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Commissioner of the City of Mount Vernon Police Department's denial of his application for benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the administrative determination, which was made after a hearing. The court found that the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits was supported by substantial evidence. It emphasized that entitlement to General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits requires proof of a direct causal relationship between job duties and the resulting injury, a relationship the petitioner failed to establish. The court also upheld the administrative factfinder's credibility determinations concerning conflicting medical expert testimony.

CPLR Article 78 ProceedingGeneral Municipal Law § 207-c BenefitsPolice DepartmentSubstantial Evidence ReviewAdministrative DeterminationCausation StandardCredibility of Medical WitnessesJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionWork-Related Injury
References
12
Case No. CV-23-1577
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Miguel Maria Santos

Miguel Maria Santos, a pizza delivery person, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his claim for benefits. Santos alleged injuries from a fall off his electric bicycle on June 14, 2021, while working for 77 GP, Inc. However, 77 GP, Inc. and its carrier controverted the claim, asserting no employer-employee relationship existed at the time of the accident. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge credited the employer's testimony that Santos was discharged on June 2, 2021, for drinking on the job, prior to his injuries. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, and the Appellate Division also affirmed, finding the Board's determination supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' compensationEmployer-employee relationshipSubstantial evidenceCredibility assessmentPizza deliveryDischarged employeeBicycle accidentAppellate reviewClaim denial
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01871 [181 AD3d 1118]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Campos v. Federal Express Corp.

Claimant Monserrate Campos filed for workers' compensation benefits in 2014 due to neck and back injuries sustained as a tractor trailer driver. During independent medical examinations, it was revealed that he failed to disclose a prior work-related back injury from 2008, leading the self-insured employer to allege a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that § 114-a did not apply, but a Board panel subsequently modified this decision, finding a violation and imposing a mandatory penalty. Claimant's application for reconsideration and/or full Board review of this decision was denied by the Workers' Compensation Board in May 2018. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's denial of reconsideration, concluding that review was limited to whether the Board abused its discretion, as the merits of the underlying § 114-a violation were not properly appealed.

MisrepresentationPrior InjuryMandatory PenaltyBoard ReviewAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewProcedural HistoryFactual FindingJudicial DiscretionMedical Disclosure
References
8
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04168 [219 AD3d 1003]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2023

Matter of Campos v. Performance Master, Inc.

Claimant Denis Campos, a construction worker, filed for workers' compensation benefits after falling from a ladder. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim and put American Zurich Insurance Company on notice regarding a specific workers' compensation policy. American Zurich contested, arguing the policy was canceled or that other policies applied, but failed to provide evidence for the identified policy despite being directed to do so. The WCLJ determined the policy remained in effect, making American Zurich the liable carrier. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, declining to consider new evidence submitted by American Zurich on administrative appeal, and subsequently denied their application for reconsideration. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, finding no abuse of discretion in refusing new evidence or denying reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsInsurance Coverage DisputePolicy CancellationAdministrative ReviewEvidence SubmissionAppellate DivisionWCLJ DecisionBoard AffirmationReconsideration DenialAbuse of Discretion
References
5
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08980
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2018

Matter of Ricci v. Maria Regina Residence

This case involves an appeal by the Special Disability Fund from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board had ruled that the workers' compensation carrier for Maria Regina Residence was entitled to reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for a claim related to Cyndia Ricci's work-related knee injury, asserting Ricci had pre-existing heart and arthritis conditions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the record lacked substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that Ricci's preexisting conditions hindered her employment potential. The court concluded that the medical opinion relied upon was based on generalities and speculation, and that conditions controlled by medication do not, without more, constitute a hindrance to employability. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting ImpairmentEmployabilityMaterially and Substantially Greater DisabilityMedical OpinionOrthopedic SurgeonAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. 532851
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Maria Fierro-Switzer (William Switzer, Dec'd)

Claimant Maria Fierro-Switzer appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that disallowed her claim for death benefits. Her deceased spouse, William Switzer, a retired New York City firefighter, volunteered at Ground Zero after the September 2001 terrorist attacks and later died from metastatic kidney cancer. Claimant alleged that his death was caused by toxic exposure during his volunteer work. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Board disallowed the claim, finding that Article 8-A of the Workers' Compensation Law, which covers volunteers in World Trade Center rescue efforts, requires the participant to file a WTC-12 registration form during their lifetime. As the decedent did not file this form, the claim under Article 8-A was denied. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that despite the independence of a death benefits claim from the decedent's potential compensation claim, there must be a legal basis for the claim and an entity upon which liability may be imposed. Since the decedent was a volunteer at the time of exposure, no claim could lie under Workers' Compensation Law § 16, which requires injuries to arise out of and in the course of employment. The decedent's sole potential avenue for recovery would have been under Article 8-A, which was precluded by the failure to file the required WTC-12 form during his lifetime.

World Trade Center9/11 AttacksGround ZeroVolunteer BenefitsDeath Benefits ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law Article 8-AWTC-12 Registration FormToxic ExposureRenal Cell CarcinomaAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2014

In re Maria S.

This case concerns a motion filed by the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) to quash a subpoena from respondent Ramon R., seeking records from a 2007 investigation into his household, which was previously deemed unfounded. Ramon R. is currently facing allegations of sexual offenses against Maria S. in a Family Court Act article 10 proceeding. The court determined that the 2007 investigative materials are relevant to the current allegations, especially regarding Maria S.’s interactions with Ramon R. Despite Social Services Law § 422(5)(a) mandating the sealing of unfounded reports, the court ruled that other investigative documents are not subject to this sealing provision. Consequently, the motion to quash was granted in part and denied in part, ordering ACS to release all documents from the 2007 investigation, excluding the oral report transmittal, after an in camera review.

SubpoenaChild Protective ServicesFamily LawRecord DisclosureConfidentialityUnfounded ReportsIn Camera ReviewSocial Services LawFamily Court ActChild Abuse Allegations
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 632 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