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
Mar 25, 1997

Byrd v. Abate

Plaintiff William Byrd, an inmate, was assaulted on Riker's Island due to a corrections officer leaving his post. Byrd filed a Section 1983 action, initially against a "John Doe" officer, later identified as Officer Wade Hults. Hults moved to amend his answer to include a statute of limitations defense. The court denied Hults' motion, deeming the amendment futile. It ruled that Byrd's Second Amended Complaint related back to the original filing because Corporation Counsel, representing both Hults and the supervisory defendants, had delayed identifying Hults, and Hults had sufficient constructive notice of the claim.

Section 1983 LitigationStatute of Limitations DefenseRule 15(c) Relation BackJohn Doe Defendant IdentityCorrectional Facility NegligenceDiscovery AbuseFutility of AmendmentImputed NoticeGovernmental ImmunityCivil Rights Action
References
26
Case No. CA 11-00541
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2011

BYRD, JOSEPH v. RONEKER, JR., FREDERICK E.

The plaintiff, Joseph Byrd, sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while cutting a tree limb at the home of defendant Frederick E. Roneker, Jr. Byrd initiated an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Roneker's motion for summary judgment, but the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court determined that Roneker, as a homeowner who did not direct or control the plaintiff's work, was exempt from liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Furthermore, the court found no evidence that Roneker exercised supervisory control or had notice of any dangerous condition, thus dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims.

Homeowner ExemptionLabor LawPersonal InjuryLadder FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNew York LawNegligencePremises LiabilityTree Trimming
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1983

Byrd v. Long Island Lighting Co.

The Reverend Herbert Byrd, a Black man, initiated this action against Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) and Local 1049, alleging discriminatory employment practices regarding seniority and testing under federal Civil Rights Acts and New York Human Rights Law, along with a claim of unfair representation against the union. Both defendants sought summary judgment on all claims. The court largely granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing most of Byrd's Title VII, Section 1981, and state law seniority claims as time-barred or lacking sufficient evidence. While the state testing claim against LILCO was also dismissed, the court denied LILCO's motion for summary judgment on a claim to enforce a 1974 conciliation agreement, allowing that specific issue to proceed against LILCO. All federal and state claims against Local 1049 were ultimately dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1866Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964Labor Management Relations ActNew York Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsSeniority SystemEmployment Testing
References
43
Case No. ADJ10857876; ADJ10857882
Regular
Mar 06, 2023

MINNIE BYRD vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Board rescinded the prior order, finding the defendant failed to prove a change in circumstances justifying the termination of applicant's home healthcare provider, Myra Shaw. The defendant must pay Ms. Shaw for services rendered, and the matter is returned for further proceedings. Applicant's objection to exhibits 12 and 13 was overruled.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardMinnie ByrdCity of Los AngelesOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderWCJhome healthcare servicesMyra ShawExhibits 12 and 13change in circumstances
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Byrd v. Roneker

Plaintiff, an independent contractor, sued Frederick E. Roneker, Jr., for personal injuries sustained in a fall from a ladder while cutting a tree limb at Roneker's home. The complaint alleged violations of Labor Law § 240 (1), § 241 (6), and common-law negligence. Roneker appealed two orders: one denying his motion for summary judgment and another concerning the record on appeal. The appellate court modified the order in appeal No. 2, allowing the plaintiff's memorandum of law only for content preservation. For appeal No. 1, the court reversed, finding Roneker was exempt from Labor Law liability as he did not direct or control the work, nor was the property used for purely commercial purposes. The court also granted summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence claim, as Roneker lacked supervisory control and notice of the dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryLadder FallHomeowner ExemptionLabor LawSummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceDirection and ControlAppellate ReviewRecord on AppealTree Trimming
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1979

Byrd v. Nassau Hospital

The claimant, a 17-year employee of Nassau Hospital, filed a claim for compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Law, alleging a back injury from carrying operating instruments. The incident's date, either November 8 or 15, 1976, was unclear, and claimant's supervisors had no recollection of being informed about the injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that no accident occurred out of and in the course of employment, a decision supported by substantial evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision without costs.

Workers' Compensation LawBack InjuryAccident in Course of EmploymentSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmedClaim DisallowedEmployee InjuryNassau HospitalSupervisor Testimony
References
0
Case No. ADJ176576 (VNO 0372379)
Regular
Oct 29, 2015

MINNIE ELLIOTT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Applicant sought reconsideration of a prior workers' compensation award, alleging the judge miscalculated indemnity payments. The applicant sustained multiple injuries, including to her low back and psyche, while employed as a recreation director. The defendant was awarded a credit for overpaid indemnity, which was commuted from the permanent disability award. The Appeals Board reviewed the petition, the judge's report, and the defendant's answer. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the judge's original decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderWCJPermanent Disability IndemnityUnderpaidCreditCommutedPetition for ReconsiderationReport and Recommendation
References
0
Case No. ADJ4043236
Regular
Aug 26, 2010

ELIZABETH MINNIS vs. SANTA BARBARA CHAMBER ORCHESTRA SOCIETY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's decision to deny a requested epidural steroid injection (ESI). The applicant, injured in 2007, sought a new ESI, claiming prior injections offered temporary relief and avoided more aggressive surgery. However, the Board found insufficient evidence that the proposed ESI was reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant’s pain returned and previous injections provided no substantial relief according to medical evaluations. The Board also noted the applicant had already received multiple ESIs, exceeding typical guideline recommendations, and that surgery had been authorized as an alternative treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationEpidural steroid injectionMedical treatmentIndustrial injuryLow backPalliative careSurgeryPhysician's assistantUtilization review
References
0
Case No. ADJ184982 (LAO 0760749), ADJ946794 (LAO 0789829)
Regular
May 22, 2012

MINNIE MARTIN vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendant, Los Angeles Unified School District. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed the petition. The dismissal is primarily due to the petition being electronically filed after the close of business on the due date, rendering it untimely. Even if it had been timely filed, the WCAB indicated it would have been denied on the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationTimely FiledElectronically FiledClose of BusinessUntimelinessDismissalWCJ ReportSupplemental PetitionSedgwick Claims Management
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ed Ex Rel. Vd v. Tuffarelli

The plaintiffs, children A.D. and E.D., along with their mother Victoria Demtchenko and father Robert Byrd, brought a federal action against the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and its employees Daniel Tuffarelli, Eric Sanford, and Rodney Jackson. They alleged violations of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights stemming from a 2006 child-neglect investigation and the emergency removal of the children without prior judicial authorization. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court denied the defendants' Rooker-Feldman doctrine defense but granted summary judgment to all defendants on the federal constitutional claims, concluding that no reasonable jury could find a constitutional violation based on the undisputed facts. The court also declined supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Child NeglectChild RemovalDue ProcessFourth AmendmentSubstantive Due ProcessProcedural Due ProcessQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentRooker-Feldman DoctrineFamily Law
References
52
Showing 1-10 of 10 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