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

Jones v. District Attorney's Office of New York

Thomas Jones, currently incarcerated, filed an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the denial of his FOIL request by the District Attorney’s Office of the County of New York (DANY). Jones sought a trial verdict sheet from his 2000 conviction for conspiracy and assault. DANY denied the request, stating Judiciary Law § 255, which Jones cited, applies only to court clerks, not district attorneys. The court affirmed DANY's denial, ruling that district attorneys are not clerks of the court, and also found Jones's claims to be time-barred under the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. The petition was consequently denied and dismissed with prejudice.

FOIL RequestVerdict SheetArticle 78 ProceedingStatute of LimitationsDistrict AttorneyCourt ClerkJudiciary LawPenal LawCriminal ConspiracyAssault
References
3
Case No. ADJ9258192 (Van Nuys District Office) ADJ1460512 (NOR 0187897) (Los Angeles District Office) ADJ3082172 (MON 0248019) (Marina del Rey District Office)
Regular
Jul 10, 2015

THOMAS SENCZAKIEWICZ vs. BOEING COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

In this workers' compensation case, the Applicant Thomas Senczakiewicz sought reconsideration of a decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted reconsideration to allow further study of the factual and legal issues involved. This means the previous decision is vacated, and the WCAB will review the case further to issue a just decision. All future correspondence related to the petition must be filed directly with the WCAB's Commissioners' office in San Francisco.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionFurther ProceedingsOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Trial Level DocumentsProposed Settlement
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2001

United States v. Reyes

Defendant Christopher Reyes sought a judgment of acquittal after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to transport stolen airbags in interstate commerce. The District Court, reserving judgment on the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 motion, reviewed the government's evidence to determine if Reyes' knowing and willful participation in the conspiracy was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence included testimony from a co-conspirator's employee, recorded phone calls, and an FBI agent's account of post-arrest interrogations. The Court found the evidence insufficient to establish Reyes' specific intent, citing the ambiguity of his statements and the unreliability of the FBI agent's testimony due to inconsistencies and volunteered opinions. Consequently, the defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal was granted, and the court also commented on proper grand jury procedures and witness testimony.

Criminal LawConspiracyStolen PropertyJudgment of AcquittalRule 29 MotionSufficiency of EvidenceWitness CredibilityFBI TestimonyHearsayGrand Jury Proceedings
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capone v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District

The petitioner, an employee of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District (UFSD), was terminated after two adult students reported sexually explicit conversations and offers of sexual acts from him. The UFSD charged the petitioner with 18 specifications of misconduct under Civil Service Law §75. Following a hearing where 17 charges were sustained, the hearing officer recommended termination, which the UFSD adopted. The petitioner initiated an article 78 proceeding, arguing insufficient notice, lack of substantial evidence, and an excessively severe penalty. The court confirmed the determination, finding the charges adequate, supported by substantial evidence from student testimonies, and that termination was not disproportionate given precedent, despite the petitioner's previously unblemished 19-year record.

Employment terminationSexual misconductAdministrative reviewCivil Service LawSufficiency of evidencePenalty proportionalityArticle 78Due processHearing officer findingsPublic education employee
References
6
Case No. ADJ438284 (ANA 0339880)
Regular
Mar 14, 2013

BRIDGETT HENRY vs. HARVEST CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The Appeals Board granted Applicant's Petition for Removal, overturning the WCJ's denial of a venue change from Marina del Rey to Goleta. Applicant demonstrated good cause for the transfer due to severe health issues exacerbated by the long commute to Marina del Rey. Although neither party's cited statutes definitively mandated the change, the Board prioritized Applicant's health concerns, granting the venue modification. Therefore, the case will now proceed in the Goleta district office.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueGood CauseLabor Code section 5501.6Health RisksPulmonary ConditionNebulizerIndustrial InjuryPsycheInternal Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ8278794
Regular
Oct 10, 2013

DAHLIA DIAZ vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's Petition for Removal, reversing the denial of their request for a change of venue. The Board found that the employer sufficiently detailed the substance of testimony from three Riverside County witnesses, fulfilling the requirements of Labor Code Section 5501.6(b). The original venue was Marina Del Rey, while the witnesses reside in Riverside and would face significant hardship traveling for a hearing. Therefore, the venue was officially changed from Marina Del Rey to the Riverside district office.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueConvenience of WitnessesLabor Code Section 5501.6Presiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryCustodianMarina Del ReyRiversideSubstance of Testimony
References
0
Case No. ADJ3046670 (POM 234030) ADJ3251524 (POM 0179393
Regular
Sep 03, 2014

CAROL ALLISON vs. MERTZ DEL AMO MOBILE ESTATES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal petitions from both applicant Carol Allison and defendant CIGA, rescinding prior orders concerning an independent medical examination and trial setting. The case is returned to the Marina Del Rey District Office for a conference before the Presiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge. This conference aims to address the case's complex procedural and substantive issues, which may stem from address errors, service defects, multiple judges, or attorney animosity. CIGA's petition for sanctions against the applicant was denied without prejudice.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCIGAPETITIONS FOR REMOVALDECISION AFTER REMOVALindependent medical examinerPERMANENT DISABILITYSTATUTE OF LIMITATIONSPROCEDURAL ISSUESDEFECTIVE FILINGSERVICE OF PAPERS
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2008

SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio

Plaintiff SD Protection, Inc. brought a breach of contract action against defendant Edward Del Rio. Over two years, SD Protection repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders, including monetary sanctions totaling $1,000 imposed by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. Despite multiple opportunities and warnings, SD Protection refused to pay the fines or comply with the court's directives. District Judge Mauskopf ultimately held SD Protection in civil contempt for its obstructionist behavior and non-compliance. The court ordered the dismissal of SD Protection's claims and will award Del Rio reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred due to the plaintiff's contempt, while declining to impose civil arrest due to jurisdictional limitations on serving such an order.

Civil ContemptDiscovery SanctionsBreach of ContractNon-complianceCourt OrdersMonetary FinesDismissal of ComplaintCompensatory RemedyJurisdictional LimitsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 1990

Del Casino v. City of New Rochelle

This case details an appeal by plaintiffs, including police officer Anthony Del Casino, from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The original order had granted the City of New Rochelle's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to dismiss affirmative defenses. Del Casino alleged negligence by the City in failing to properly maintain a footbridge, leading to personal injuries, and cited violations of the City Charter and Highway Law §§ 230 and 251. The Appellate Court modified the order by denying the defendant's summary judgment motion and reinstating the complaint, finding a valid cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e. Additionally, the court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion to dismiss the City's fourth affirmative defense, which was deemed inapplicable to a statutory cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e.

Personal Injury DamagesNegligence ActionSummary Judgment MotionAffirmative Defenses DismissalPolice Officer InjuryMunicipal NegligenceFootbridge MaintenanceGeneral Municipal Law § 205-eHighway Law ViolationsComplaint Reinstatement
References
2
Case No. ADJ7306886
Regular
May 09, 2011

MARIA REYES vs. OUTWEST, INC. dba BRIGHTON COLLECTIBLES, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, Maria Reyes filed a petition for reconsideration regarding her claim. The Board reviewed the petition and the administrative law judge's report. After reviewing the record, the Board adopted the judge's report and denied Reyes' petition for reconsideration.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRECONSIDERATION OPINIONDENIEDPetition for ReconsiderationwcjapplicantdefendantOUTWEST INCBRIGHTON COLLECTIBLESPREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 5,499 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