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 08, 2006

Auble v. Doyle

Plaintiffs initiated an action alleging breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation against defendant Patrie Doyle. The dispute arose from health care insurance benefits paid to Doyle's former wife between 1997 and 2002, despite her ineligibility post-divorce in 1984. The Supreme Court's initial order, which granted parts of the plaintiffs' motion and denied Doyle's cross-motion for summary judgment, was appealed. The appellate court modified the order, denying parts of the plaintiffs' motion concerning breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. It awarded plaintiffs $57.50 for conversion and granted Doyle's cross-motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation claims against him. The order, as modified, was affirmed.

breach of contractconversionunjust enrichmentnegligent misrepresentationsummary judgmenthealth care benefitsinsurance eligibilitymarital statusappellate reviewcredibility assessment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S. Children

This child protective proceeding was initiated by The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children against a father accused of sexually abusing his young son, Scott, in the presence of his older son, Jonathan. When Jonathan, an alleged eyewitness, became reluctant to testify in his father's presence, the petitioner requested his testimony be taken in camera. The court denied this application, citing the respondent's due process right to confront witnesses and finding insufficient evidence of a pathological impact on the child. The court emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for in camera testimony in such cases and suggested legislative consideration for future procedures to balance child protection with parental rights.

Child Protective ProceedingIn Camera TestimonyDue Process RightsRight to ConfrontationChild WitnessSexual Abuse AllegationsFamily Court ActWitness ReluctanceBalancing of InterestsExclusion of Respondent
References
6
Case No. ADJ8414182
Regular
Feb 25, 2014

VICTOR LEDESMA, (VICTOR GOMEZ LEDESMA) vs. GROUP MANUFACTURING SERVICES, HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for a left ankle and foot injury. The defendant sought reconsideration of the decision, arguing the applicant's testimony was less credible, the claim was barred as post-termination, exhibits were improperly admitted, and a defense witness was wrongly excluded. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's report. The judge found the applicant's testimony credible, noting inconsistencies and misrepresentations in the defendant's arguments and witness testimonies. Specifically, the judge determined the termination date was not a bar, the admission of exhibits was proper, and the exclusion of the unlisted rebuttal witness was warranted.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportcredibility findingGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.denial of reconsiderationoccupational injuryleft ankle and footdeburrerdenied claim
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LM Business Associates, Inc. v. State

Defendant appealed a Court of Claims judgment that found them liable to claimants for conversion and negligent misrepresentation. The case stemmed from the seizure of claimants' computers during a fraud investigation into affiliated businesses, which resulted in the owner's conviction, though claimants were never charged. The seized computers, vital for claimants' businesses, were returned over two years later. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that defendant's seizure and retention of the computers were authorized by a valid search warrant, thus not constituting conversion. It further ruled that no 'privity-like relationship' existed between investigators and claimants to support a negligent misrepresentation claim. Lastly, the court dismissed the constitutional tort claim, noting claimants had adequate alternative remedies in other forums.

ConversionNegligent MisrepresentationSearch WarrantSeizure of PropertyState LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstitutional TortFraud InvestigationWorkers' Compensation LawCourt of Claims
References
22
Case No. ADJ8075448
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

ALEX ROBLES vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a trial judge's award in favor of applicant Alex Robles against Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). SCGC sought reconsideration, asserting that crucial testimony was omitted from the trial record. The WCAB ordered transcription of all trial testimony to ensure a full and fair adjudication of SCGC's petition. This action was necessary to allow the Board further study of the factual and legal issues involved.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAOE/COEGoing and Coming RuleMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceTrial TestimonyWCAB Rule 10740Transcript TranscriptionElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Washington v. Montefiore Hospital

Claimant, a mechanical engineer, sustained a work-related injury and received initial workers' compensation benefits. The employer later contested further disability, leading to a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) order for medical expert depositions, including one from the employer's expert, Robert Orlandi. Claimant's counsel objected to Orlandi's telephone deposition but failed to formally challenge the notice or raise a specific objection to the oath administration during the deposition. Orlandi's testimony, taken via telephone with the court reporter in New York and Orlandi in Connecticut, concluded that the claimant was no longer disabled. Both the WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board credited Orlandi's testimony, finding the claimant waived objections to the deposition's procedural irregularities. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the claimant's failure to make a timely and specific objection to the oath's administration during the deposition constituted a waiver, thus allowing the Board to properly rely on Orlandi's evidence.

Workers' CompensationMedical TestimonyDeposition ProcedureWaiver of ObjectionCPLROath AdministrationDisability AssessmentAppellate ReviewExpert WitnessProcedural Irregularities
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Morelli v. Tops Markets

Claimant, having sustained work-related injuries in 2007 and receiving benefits, was questioned by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) regarding work activities at a 2011 hearing. Immediately after, the employer and its carrier sought to introduce surveillance video and investigator testimony, alleging a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The WCLJ denied this request and precluded the evidence, ruling that the carrier failed to disclose the surveillance prior to the claimant's testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, reiterating the established requirement for timely disclosure of surveillance materials to prevent 'gamesmanship.' The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious action, as the carrier had an opportunity to disclose the evidence before prompting the WCLJ's questioning and before the claimant testified.

Workers' Compensation LawSurveillance EvidenceDisclosure ObligationPreclusion of EvidenceAppellate ReviewEvidence AdmissibilityClaimant TestimonyEmployer ResponsibilitiesCarrier ResponsibilitiesBoard Decision
References
11
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00203 [179 AD3d 1279]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2020

Matter of Calabrese v. Fortini Inc.

Claimant Shaun M. Calabrese appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding that Calabrese made false reports and testimony about his job search efforts after a work-related back injury in 2015, leading to a permanent disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the investigator's hearsay report and testimony provided substantial and sufficiently reliable evidence to support the finding of misrepresentation for obtaining benefits.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFalse RepresentationWage Replacement BenefitsLabor Market AttachmentSubstantial EvidenceWitness CredibilityHearsay EvidenceJob SearchPermanent DisqualificationAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Siddon v. Advance Energy Technologies

The case involves an appeal by a claimant from an amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, which found she violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a and disqualified her from future wage replacement benefits. The claimant had misrepresented her prior medical history regarding back injuries, initially denying any previous treatment or missed work due to back pain before her 2006 injury. However, medical records contradicted her testimony, showing multiple instances of back pain and treatment between 1993 and 2006. The Board concluded these omissions constituted a material misrepresentation, leading to the forfeiture of benefits and disqualification. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence to support the finding of a material misrepresentation and the appropriateness of the penalty.

Workers' CompensationFraudMisrepresentationPrior InjuryBack PainForfeiture of BenefitsDisqualificationCredibility IssueSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,917 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