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. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Brady v. Northeast Riggers & Erectors

In March 2012, the claimant, a union construction laborer, sustained a work-related back and abdomen injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found the claimant attached to the labor market but deemed a total industrial disability finding premature because permanent disability had not yet been classified. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this determination. The claimant appealed, arguing the Board erred in declining to classify him with a temporary total industrial disability. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that a classification of temporary total industrial disability cannot be made without a prior determination of permanency.

Workers' CompensationIndustrial DisabilityPermanent DisabilityTemporary DisabilityLabor MarketAppellate DivisionBoard DecisionPremature DeterminationGainful EmploymentWork History
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Yanarella v. IBM Corp.

Claimant, a computer programmer, alleged total industrial disability due to multiple chemical sensitivities incurred during her work in a manufacturing environment. The Workers’ Compensation Board's medical examiner and an independent rehabilitation report both concluded she was only permanently partially disabled and remained reasonably employable. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge classified her as permanently partially disabled, a finding which the Board affirmed. The claimant appealed this decision, raising procedural arguments regarding denied cross-examination and hearings, but the court found these issues were waived or lacked merit as they were not properly raised or requested. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial medical evidence supporting the conclusion that the claimant was not totally industrially disabled.

chemical sensitivitiesindustrial disabilitycomputer programmerpermanent partial disabilitymedical evidencecross-examination waiverappellate reviewWorkers' Compensation Boardvocational assessmentdue process
References
6
Case No. ADJ7037475
Regular
Oct 04, 2018

JESUS ROJAS vs. GAY AND LESBIAN COMMUNITY CENTER, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Jesus Rojas's petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's award of 81% permanent disability for his admitted industrial spine injury. Rojas argued for 100% permanent disability based on an Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion of inability to return to the labor market and contended apportionment to non-industrial factors was unsubstantiated. The Board found the apportionment to pre-existing congenital stenosis was supported by medical evidence and that the *Hikida* case did not apply as Rojas's disability was not directly caused by the effects of medical treatment necessitated by both industrial and non-industrial factors. Furthermore, the Board held that Labor Code section 4662(b) does not create an independent pathway to permanent total disability.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Labor Code section 4656Labor Code section 4658Labor Code section 4662(b)Hikida v. Workers' Comp. Appeals. Bd.non-industrial factors
References
2
Case No. ADJ9180338
Regular
Mar 08, 2016

MISAEL BELTRAN vs. BRAND SCAFFOLD SERVICES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved a carpenter seeking benefits for industrial injury to his skin and back. The applicant was initially awarded 22% permanent disability and temporary total disability benefits from October 2013 to May 2015. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the award should have been apportioned 10% to non-industrial causes and that temporary disability was improperly extended. The Board granted reconsideration, amended the permanent disability award to 20% to reflect the stipulated 10% non-industrial apportionment, and affirmed the temporary disability findings, deeming them supported by substantial evidence.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjurySkin InjuryBack InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionmentNon-industrial CausationTemporary Total DisabilityQualified Medical Evaluator
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rudolph v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Plaintiff Paul Rudolph sought relief against the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and the Pension Fund under ERISA for the denial of his disability pension. Rudolph, who suffered from coronary artery disease, diabetes, and hypertension, was terminated from JIB in 1998 due to his inability to perform work functions. The Pension Committee denied his application and subsequent appeal for disability benefits, concluding that he was not permanently incapacitated to the extent he could no longer secure gainful employment in the Electrical Industry or any other line of business. The court reviewed the Pension Committee's decision under the arbitrary and capricious standard, finding it was reasonable and supported by medical evidence. Ultimately, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, affirming the denial of benefits.

ERISADisability PensionSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardDe Novo ReviewFiduciary DutyEmployee BenefitsPlan AdministrationMedical EvidencePension Committee
References
34
Case No. ADJ3026623
Regular
Jun 28, 2010

ROBERTO PICENO vs. KLUNE INDUSTRIES, INC.; CIGA, administered by CAMBRIDGE for FREMONT, in liquidation

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of an award of permanent disability for an applicant's industrial injuries sustained on January 22, 1997. The defendant argued for apportionment of the permanent disability to non-industrial factors and to a cumulative trauma injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition because it was unverified, a mandatory requirement. The WCAB found the defendant failed to cure this defect within a reasonable time after it was pointed out. Therefore, the defendant's contentions regarding apportionment were not addressed on their merits by the WCAB.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUnverified PetitionLabor Code Section 5902ApportionmentCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. ADJ9971016
Regular
Aug 27, 2019

BALDEMAR GONZALEZ, JR. vs. MORGANITE INDUSTRIES, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a dispute over the apportionment of permanent disability benefits for an applicant's hearing loss. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the original award because the administrative law judge (WCJ) failed to provide the formula used to calculate the 16% permanent disability rating. Additionally, the WCAB found that the medical evaluator's report lacked sufficient reasoning to explain how the applicant's asymmetrical hearing loss was apportioned between industrial and non-industrial causes. The matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings, potentially including a new medical report and deposition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent Disability RatingApportionmentIndustrial InjuryNon-IndustrialOccupational Noise ExposureAsymmetrical Hearing LossQualified Medical EvaluatorOtology Report
References
10
Case No. ADJ2570690 (BAK 0136703) ADJ2091641 (BAK 0136704) ADJ2368957 (BAK 0136705)
Regular
Feb 01, 2016

WESLEY CHAMBERS vs. SCHLUMBERGER DOWELL, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision, the applicant sustained a 100% permanent disability award due to orthopedic and psychiatric injuries. The Board granted reconsideration, agreeing with the applicant's total permanent disability but finding the prior apportionment to non-industrial factors was insufficient. The Board amended the award to incorporate a 15% apportionment to non-industrial factors based on medical opinion, reducing the compensable permanent disability to 85%, and returned the case for a new rating. This adjustment stems from the applicant's pre-existing "family problems" which contributed to his psychiatric condition, independent of his industrial injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentCumulative TraumaPsychiatric InjuryOrthopedic InjuryAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical EvaluatorMedical Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2000

Rivera v. Apple Industrial Corp.

Plaintiff Alfredo Rivera, a security guard, sued his former employers Apple Industrial Corporation and Effective Security Systems, Inc., alleging discrimination and wrongful discharge under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) due to his diabetes and poor eyesight. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court found that Rivera failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as he could not prove his impairments constituted a "disability" under the ADA while employed, particularly because his conditions were controlled by medication and he conceded his eyesight was sufficient for his job. Furthermore, even if disabled, Rivera did not show he was denied reasonable accommodation or discharged due to his disability; rather, defendants provided evidence of legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his termination based on unsatisfactory job performance. The Court also rejected Rivera's claims of retaliation and hostile work environment, noting the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive enough and that his supervisors had, at times, assisted him. Therefore, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was closed.

ADA DiscriminationDisability RightsEmployment LawSummary Judgment StandardDiabetic ImpairmentVision ImpairmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation ClaimJob Performance IssuesReasonable Accommodation
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 11,184 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