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
Feb 01, 2002

Storms v. Dominican College of Blauvelt

The plaintiff, a laborer employed by Schaeffer Construction Co., fell 25 feet while dismantling scaffolding at a residence hall construction site for Dominican College of Blauvelt. The plaintiff asserted claims of negligence and Labor Law violations against Dominican College of Blauvelt and the general contractor, Fred L. Holt, Inc. The Supreme Court denied Holt's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to unresolved factual issues regarding proximate cause and safety measures. Holt's claim for indemnification against Schaeffer was also denied based on Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and the anti-subrogation rule. However, Dominican College of Blauvelt was granted summary judgment on its common-law and contractual indemnification claims against both Holt and Schaeffer, as there was no evidence Dominican directed or controlled the work's safety. Additionally, certain appeals by Holt and Schaeffer were dismissed.

Personal InjuryScaffolding AccidentLabor Law ViolationsIndemnificationSummary JudgmentSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityWorkers' Compensation LawAnti-Subrogation RuleAppellate Division
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Merced Irrigation District v. Barclays Bank PLC

Merced Irrigation District sued Barclays Bank PLC, alleging market manipulation in electricity index prices, violating federal antitrust laws (Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2), California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and New York's unjust enrichment law. Barclays moved to dismiss the complaint. The court found Merced had standing and that fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations. The motion was granted for the Section 1 Sherman Act claim due to a lack of alleged concerted action, and for the unjust enrichment claim due to the absence of a direct relationship between the parties. However, the motion was denied for the Section 2 Sherman Act monopolization claim and the UCL claim, allowing those to proceed. Merced was given leave to amend the dismissed claims.

Antitrust LawMarket ManipulationElectricity MarketsSherman Act Section 1Sherman Act Section 2California Unfair Competition LawUnjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsFraudulent Concealment
References
85
Case No. CV-24-1475
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

Matter of Belcher v. Dominican Vil. Inc.

Claimant Albert Belcher, a security director, sustained a work-related lower back injury in June 2022. After the employer denied his request for reduced work, he announced his intent to retire in December 2022. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) ruled that Belcher violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by knowingly making a material misrepresentation for failing to disclose his private investigation work during medical examinations, imposing both mandatory and discretionary penalties. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's finding of a § 114-a violation due to substantial evidence but reversed the discretionary penalty of permanent disqualification from future wage replacement benefits, finding it disproportionate to the offense given Belcher's subsequent disclosures to the Board and during hearings.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aMaterial MisrepresentationDiscretionary PenaltyWage Replacement BenefitsFraudPermanent DisqualificationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWitness CredibilityWork-Related Injury
References
26
Case No. ADJ10138143
Regular
Sep 01, 2017

SHIRLEY BROWN vs. MERCY MEDICAL CENTER MERCED COMMUNITY CAMPUS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, amending a prior decision. The Board ruled that attorney's fees for the applicant's counsel should be based entirely on their reasonable hourly rate and hours worked, not a combination of hourly rate and a percentage of the recovery. This decision clarified that fees owed by an employer under Labor Code § 4064(c) for an unrepresented employee's attorney are determined by the reasonableness of hours and hourly rate, not the indemnity awarded. Consequently, the applicant's attorney was awarded $10,758.75.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAttorney's FeesHourly RatePercentage of RecoveryLabor Code § 4064Declaration of Readiness to ProceedStipulations with Request for AwardQuantum MeruitIndemnity
References
1
Case No. ADJ8845585
Regular
Oct 09, 2025

WESLEY RENTFROW vs. COUNTY OF MERCED, PEGASUS RISK MANAGEMENT

Defendant, County of Merced, filed a petition for removal from an order taking the matter off calendar, contending further discovery was unnecessary. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) considered the petition, the applicant's answer, and the WCJ's report, ultimately denying removal. The WCAB stated that removal is an extraordinary remedy and found no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Furthermore, the Board noted the issue appeared moot as the defendant had not taken steps to place the matter back on calendar in the three years since filing the petition.

Petition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderWCJ ReportSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationMoot IssueDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedCOBRA PremiumsAdjudication Number
References
2
Case No. ADJ9533148
Regular
Apr 17, 2019

ANTHONY TAYLOR (deceased) vs. MERCED COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to reverse a prior finding of bad faith against the defendant, Merced County Sheriff's Department. The Board determined that the defendant acted within its legal rights to dispute the medical specialty for a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) and sought a replacement panel. Because the defendant's actions were permissible under regulations, they were not considered bad faith, thus rescinding the attorney's fees award. The Board otherwise affirmed the original decision regarding the appropriateness of an internal medicine specialist.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMerced County Sheriff’s DepartmentAnthony Taylordeath benefitspancreatic cancercorrectional sergeantsepticemiabiliary tract obstructionQME panelinternal medicine
References
1
Case No. ADJ3730512 (FRE 0210105)
Regular
Aug 28, 2009

Roy Dettling vs. MERCED COMMUNITY COLLEGE, JT2 INTEGRATED SAN RAMON

In *Dettling v. Merced Community College*, the Appeals Board rescinded a prior award of retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA). The Board found that the repeal of Labor Code § 139.5 on January 1, 2009, terminated all pending and non-final vocational rehabilitation claims. Because the applicant's VRMA award was not final before the repeal, his right to these benefits was extinguished. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings not involving VRMA.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationVocational RehabilitationLabor Code § 139.5Qualified Injured WorkerVRMAWeiner v. Ralphs CompanyRepealNon-finalVested Rights
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Neal v. Archdioceses of New York

In this dissenting opinion, Judge Crane argues for the reversal of an order that granted summary judgment, dismissing a complaint against the Archdioceses of New York and Pius 12 Residential Services — Chester Campus Program. The core issue revolves around the defendants' alleged negligent supervision, leading to an assault where student William Cook broke Israel O'Neal's jaw. Judge Crane contends that the defendants failed to demonstrate a lack of actual or constructive notice regarding Cook's documented violent tendencies, citing extensive behavioral records. Contrary to the majority's view of an impulsive attack, the dissent details a prolonged altercation between the students, suggesting supervisory staff had ample opportunity to intervene. Therefore, the dissenting judge concludes that the motion for summary judgment should have been denied, and the complaint reinstated.

Negligent SupervisionSummary Judgment MotionDissenting OpinionSchool LiabilityStudent InjuryActual NoticeConstructive NoticeAssault and BatteryProximate CauseEducational Institutions
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1995

Brier v. City University

The respondent City University of New York's determination, dated August 13, 1995, to dismiss the petitioner from his role as Administrative Superintendent of Campus Buildings and Grounds at Lehman College, effective September 8, 1995, was unanimously confirmed. The petition was denied, and the CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred from the Supreme Court, New York County, was dismissed. The court found that respondent's conclusions regarding the petitioner's failure to report lost keys, ensure proper facility cleaning and maintenance, and general incompetence were supported by substantial evidence, including testimony from the petitioner, superiors, and co-workers. No grounds were found to overturn the respondent's credibility assessments, and the penalty of dismissal was deemed appropriate, especially considering the petitioner's prior disciplinary history.

Public EmploymentAdministrative LawEmployee MisconductWorkplace DisciplineJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingLehman CollegeCity University of New YorkTermination of EmploymentSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. Docket No. V-20843-4/02
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2004

Hector G. v. Josefina P.

This case addresses a child custody dispute between a mother and father involving the application of New York's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The mother brought her twin sons from the Dominican Republic to the United States after the father obtained a default custody order there. Allegations of extensive domestic violence against the mother and children by the father were subsequently raised in New York's Integrated Domestic Violence Court. The New York court assumed temporary emergency jurisdiction, contacted the Dominican court, which then declined to retain jurisdiction. Based on the significant connections of the mother and children to New York, the availability of substantial evidence, and domestic violence concerns, the court assumed full modification jurisdiction over the Dominican custody order, concluding that New York is the more convenient forum.

UCCJEAInternational Custody DisputeDomestic Violence AllegationsTemporary Emergency JurisdictionModification JurisdictionInconvenient Forum AnalysisDominican Republic Custody OrderHome State JurisdictionParental KidnappingChild Relocation
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 54 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