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. ADJ14742380, ADJ14742854
Regular
Sep 13, 2022

LYNN CHITTICK vs. HEART OF HUMANITY HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICES, NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's findings. The WCJ found the applicant's testimony regarding a December 16, 2019 injury report credible, while finding the employer's witnesses inconsistent. The Board also noted the defendant's petition lacked proper evidentiary citations, a violation of WCAB rules. Furthermore, the employer was estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as the applicant was misinformed by management about workers' compensation coverage.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJCredibility determinationsRule 10945Statute of limitationsTollingEquitable estoppelNotice of injuryPreponderance of the evidence
References
8
Case No. ADJ11061012
Regular
Aug 28, 2019

MARACHELLE JACKSON vs. DOOR TO HOPE, LWP CLAIMS

Applicant sought reconsideration of an order approving a $95,000 compromise and release, claiming she was pressured into signing due to a mental health crisis and misinformation. The Board dismissed the petition as untimely, noting the lack of proof of service for the original order. However, the Board remanded the case to the WCJ to determine if the applicant's allegations constitute good cause to set aside the compromise and release. This involves evaluating whether the settlement was secured by fraud, mistake, duress, or undue influence, rendering it inequitable.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationWCABAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuriesNeck InjuriesWrist InjuriesHand InjuriesArm InjuriesHead Injuries
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 1993

In re the Claim of Maier

The claimant, a metal plant worker, appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed on May 17, 1993. The Board had ruled the claimant ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits because of a failure to comply with registration requirements during a two-week period when their employer’s plant was shut down. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion. It determined that the claimant's failure to register promptly stemmed from a mistaken belief about eligibility, rather than any misinformation from the employer or local office. Concluding that there was no valid excuse for the claimant's non-compliance, the court affirmed the Board's determination.

Unemployment BenefitsIneligibilityRegistration RequirementsMistaken BeliefBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePlant ShutdownMetal Plant WorkerTimely Registration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Incorporation of the Village of Harrison

This proceeding, brought under Village Law section 2-224, challenged the validity of an election held on October 16, 1974, concerning the incorporation of the Village of Harrison within the Town of Harrison. The petitioner alleged five irregularities, including biased transportation, misleading communications from town officials, voter misinformation at polling places, an inconvenient polling location, and improper voter registration. Despite a strong majority (85%) in favor of incorporation, the petitioner sought to invalidate the results. The court determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the alleged irregularities were numerous enough to alter the election's outcome, concluding that the substantial majority for incorporation would not have been reversed. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Election ChallengeVillage IncorporationVoter IrregularitiesTown of HarrisonSufficiency of EvidenceMajority VoteCampaign MisconductPolling PlaceVoter RegistrationVillage Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2003

In re the Claim of Lang

This case concerns an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found the claimant ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits. The claimant, having lost employment on April 2, 2002, delayed applying until June 26, 2002, due to a mistaken belief that a pending workers’ compensation claim precluded concurrent unemployment benefit applications. The Board ruled the claimant ineligible from April 3, 2002, to June 24, 2002, citing non-compliance with registration requirements, noting that no misinformation was received nor was an attempt made to contact the unemployment office. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that while good cause can excuse deficiencies, it was not demonstrated in this instance.

Unemployment Insurance EligibilityRegistration ComplianceGood Cause ExceptionWorkers' Compensation Claim ImpactBenefit DenialAdministrative AppealAppellate DivisionLabor Law ComplianceTimely ApplicationClaimant Responsibility
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falise v. American Tobacco Co.

This case involves the trustees of the Johns-Manville Corporation bankruptcy Trust suing major tobacco product manufacturers and related entities. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants' fraudulent schemes of misinformation contributed to asbestos-related injuries of the Trust's claimants, leading to increased payouts from the Trust. Plaintiffs asserted claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) and state common-law fraud. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court denied summary judgment on the RICO Direct Payment and RICO Investment actions, as well as the State Fraud action, and several other motions, while granting summary judgment on the RICO Settlement and RICO Litigation actions. A Daubert hearing was ordered, and trial dates were set.

asbestosRICOfraudtobaccoJohns-Manvillesummary judgmentcivil litigationcausationstatute of limitationsdisgorgement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spira v. Ethical Culture School

Bernard R. Spira, a plaintiff, sued his former employer, Ethical Culture School, and three individuals for age discrimination. He filed the complaint with the EEOC in September 1992 and received a 'Right-to-Sue' letter on November 8, 1994, which stated a 90-day period to file suit. Spira filed suit on March 7, 1995, approximately 114 calendar days after receipt. He argued that an EEOC worker orally misinformed him that the 90-day period was in working days, not calendar days. The defendants moved to dismiss based on the failure to comply with the 90-day limitations period. The court granted the motion, finding no extraordinary circumstances or affirmative misconduct by the EEOC to warrant equitable tolling of the limitations period.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingEEOC ProceduresRight-to-Sue LetterMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Affirmative MisconductFederal Courts
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 1998

Castro v. Wing

The petitioner sought review of a determination by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, which upheld the Suffolk County Department of Social Services' decision to deny her application for public assistance and food stamp benefits. The denial was based on her failure to appear at a scheduled front end detection system (FEDS) interview, a requirement for eligibility. The petitioner argued she was misinformed by a case worker and did not see the notices. The court confirmed the determination, ruling that the FEDS review was an essential eligibility requirement and the petitioner failed to demonstrate good cause for her absence. A dissenting judge contended that the respondents did not provide substantial evidence that the petitioner refused to attend the interview, and that the FEDS process, established for fraud prevention, should not inherently preclude benefit application processing.

Public Assistance DenialFood Stamp BenefitsEligibility RequirementsFEDS InterviewAdministrative Due ProcessAgency Determination ReviewGood CauseFraud PreventionSuffolk County DSSNew York Social Services
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2000

McNulty v. City of New York

This dissenting opinion addresses the legal duty of physicians and hospitals to non-patients in a medical malpractice case. Plaintiff Mary Ann McNulty sued several doctors and hospitals after contracting meningococcal meningitis from her friend, Robin Reda, following alleged misinformation and failure to warn about prophylactic treatment. The dissent argues that expanding a physician's duty beyond the established physician-patient relationship to a non-patient friend creates an unmanageable and potentially limitless scope of liability, citing precedent that narrowly defines such duties even for immediate family members. It contends that the hospitals' voluntary undertaking to contact at-risk individuals did not create a legal duty of care to Ms. McNulty. Therefore, the dissenting judge would dismiss all claims against the physicians and hospitals involved.

Medical MalpracticeMedical NegligenceDuty of CarePhysician-Patient RelationshipContagious DiseaseMeningitisSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird-Party LiabilityForeseeability
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Hinds

Rawle Hinds was convicted for illegal re-entry into the United States after prior deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The case focused on the application of the amended Sentencing Guidelines, which came into effect on November 1, 1991, significantly increasing penalties for re-entry after an 'aggravated felony' conviction. The court found that the rigid application of these new guidelines, particularly the 16-level increase for aggravated felonies and the method of calculating criminal history for prior marijuana offenses, substantially over-represented Hinds' criminal past and the nature of his offense. Considering these factors, including the disparate treatment of similar cases and the misinformation Hinds received about potential sentences, the District Judge exercised judicial discretion to grant a downward departure. Consequently, Hinds' sentence was reduced from a possible 51-63 months to 33 months.

Sentencing GuidelinesDownward DepartureAggravated FelonyIllegal Re-entryDeportationCriminal History CalculationJudicial Discretion8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)Marijuana ConvictionImmigration Violations
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 12 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