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. 2024 NY Slip Op 05011 [231 AD3d 1262]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

Matter of Lebeau v. Meet Caregivers Inc.

Claimant Okina Lebeau, a certified nurse assistant, filed for workers' compensation benefits alleging injuries to her right leg and knee from an assault by a coworker. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding the injury did not arise out of employment. Claimant's subsequent application for reconsideration was denied. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, crediting the coworker's and manager's testimonies over claimant's. The Board determined that no physical altercation occurred and that the claimant's injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment, a finding supported by substantial evidence.

Employment InjuryAssault ClaimCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardWorkplace IncidentClaimant TestimonyEmployer InvestigationFactual Determination
References
8
Case No. ADJ7476556
Regular
Nov 09, 2010

MAXIMA ANDRES vs. MATCHED CAREGIVERS, INC., HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY SELF INSURANCE, PRIVATE ADJUSTING RANCHO CUCAMONGA

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant after an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR). However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition as moot. This is because the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had already rescinded the OACR on October 21, 2010, prior to the defendant's petition. Therefore, the action sought by the defendant's petition had already been taken.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseOrder RescindingWCJMootDismissalMatched CaregiversInc.Health Care Industry Self Insurance
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Neill v. Doherty

The respondent found that the petitioner violated a rule against loading trade waste in excess of six bags without authorization. This finding was supported by substantial evidence. The petitioner and his partner matched the description of sanitation workers seen picking up construction debris, and their truck was found to contain such debris. Furthermore, a deputy chief testified that the carpet and tiles in the truck matched those at the house in question. The penalty imposed was deemed fair, considering the petitioner's short employment period and multiple prior disciplinary infractions.

Trade Waste ViolationConstruction DebrisDisciplinary InfractionPenalty ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewSanitation DepartmentMisconductPrior Offenses
References
2
Case No. ADJ7505520
Regular
Jul 01, 2014

ALBERT LOBO vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNADINO

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board amended a prior award concerning applicant Albert Lobo's industrial injury. The Board clarified that applicant is entitled to home health care services, including reimbursement for caregiver Halimah Shenghur. However, specific issues regarding the commencement date of liability and reimbursement for certain other individuals are deferred for further development of the record. The Board affirmed the entitlement to services based on a physician's prescription and the caregiver's extensive documented care, while emphasizing the employer's duty to investigate and provide benefits promptly.

Industrial injurybilateral upper extremitiesbilateral lower extremitiesinternal systemsself-procured medical treatmentcaregiver serviceshome health care serviceshome modificationsNeri Hernandezprescription requirement
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 1990

People v. Lovett

The Supreme Court of New York County rendered a judgment on December 18, 1990, convicting the defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees. The defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender. The judgment was unanimously affirmed. The evidence at the hearing demonstrated that responding officers observed a person matching the perpetrator's description fleeing the scene of a shooting. Subsequently, the defendant, who was the only individual in the vicinity and matched the description, exhibited evasive conduct and attempted to flee upon police approach, which provided sufficient grounds for investigative action.

criminal possession of a weaponsecond degreethird degreefelony offenderjury trialpolice investigationflightevasive conductprobable causeSupreme Court
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 1983

Claim of Lubrano v. Malinet

A 16-year-old gasoline service station attendant sustained burns from an explosion after throwing a lighted match into a can with gasoline residue, an act he and another employee had previously performed without incident. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision, ruling the injury compensable as a result of "cumulative horseplay." The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the horseplay was an isolated, unauthorized act, contrary to employer warnings. The court reviewed precedents on compensability of horseplay, noting that exceptions typically involve foreseeable conduct or trifling deviations. The court found that throwing a lighted match into gasoline was not condoned or an incident of employment. The decision of the Board was reversed, and the claim was dismissed.

Workers' CompensationHorseplay InjuryScope of EmploymentEmployee MisconductCompensabilityGasoline StationExplosion InjuryAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyBoard Decision Appeal
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jermyn v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.

This case addresses Defendant Best Buy's second motion to decertify a class of New York customers who alleged the company denied valid price match requests through a secret corporate "Anti-Price Matching Policy." The court had previously certified the class for both injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and money damages under Rule 23(b)(3). Best Buy's motion for decertification was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, which clarified standards for class commonality and the appropriateness of monetary claims in Rule 23(b)(2) classes. The court denied the motion, distinguishing Dukes by noting that the plaintiffs here successfully alleged and provided substantial proof of a specific, centralized illegal corporate policy, unlike the broad discretion at issue in Dukes. Furthermore, the court emphasized that its certification involved separate classes for injunctive and monetary relief, thus not violating Dukes' guidance on combined (b)(2) claims.

Class ActionDecertification MotionCommonalityRule 23(b)(2) CertificationRule 23(b)(3) CertificationConsumer ProtectionPrice Match PolicyDeceptive Business PracticesCorporate PolicyMonetary Damages
References
22
Case No. ADJ8074524
Regular
Jan 17, 2013

Geoconda Acevedo vs. Reliable Caregivers, PEGASUS RISK MANAGEMENT

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the selection of a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) is not a final order. However, the Board granted removal to address issues with defective QME panels. The Board rescinded the prior award and ordered the WCJ to appoint a regular physician if the parties cannot agree on an Agreed Medical Examiner. This action aims to resolve the ongoing delays and procedural defects in selecting a QME for the applicant's evaluation.

QME panelremovalagreed medical examinerpanel qualified medical evaluatorWCJ authoritylabor code section 5701substantive right or liabilityprimary treating physicianindustrial injuryreconsideration
References
6
Case No. LBO 0357008
Regular
Jul 23, 2007

GERARDO PEREZ vs. A'S MATCH DYEING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow the lien claimant's full claim of $863.55 for interpreting services. The Board reversed the Administrative Law Judge's decision, finding these services, provided at required follow-up medical appointments, are reasonably necessary and compensable under Labor Code section 4600. This decision aligns with prior precedent establishing the necessity of effective communication for injured workers' treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeInterpreting ServicesLabor Code Section 4600Reasonable and NecessaryMedical TreatmentTreating PhysicianFollow-up Visits
References
2
Case No. ADJ2141542
Regular
Oct 12, 2010

CELESTINO MORALES vs. MAINTENANCE MATCH INC., CIGA on behalf of SUPERIOR PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE

This case concerns CIGA's petition for reconsideration of an arbitrator's decision that barred CIGA's recovery from Travelers Insurance due to laches. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the arbitrator's decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found that Travelers failed to prove prejudice resulting from CIGA's delay in joining them as a party. Therefore, Travelers' defense of laches was not established, allowing the case to proceed.

CIGASuperior Pacific Insurance CompanyliquidationLachesEquitable EstoppelArbitratorTravelers Insurancereimbursementother insuranceInsurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 55 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