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

Matter of Losardo v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation

Claimant, a truck driver, sought workers' compensation benefits for a back injury he alleged occurred in October 2007 while unloading a truck. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding insufficient credible medical evidence to support a work-related injury. The claimant subsequently appealed the Board's decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's ruling, noting that medical records and testimony from treating physicians contradicted the claim of a work-related accident, instead suggesting a pre-existing condition and a non-work related injury at home. The court upheld the Board's broad authority to resolve credibility and draw inferences, concluding that its decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Back InjuryTruck DriverCompensable InjuryMedical EvidenceCredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewDisability BenefitsWork-Related InjuryClaimant Testimony
References
4
Case No. ADJ3845272 (SRO 0103733) ADJ1335789 (SRO 0121654)
Regular
Jun 22, 2012

ROBERT VIALE vs. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION

This case involves a dispute over an attorney's fee where the applicant's attorney sought $90,000 from a $638,982 settlement. The WCJ initially limited the fee, excluding amounts used for Medicare Set Aside (MSA) funding from the calculation based on a prior panel decision. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's order, and awarded the full $90,000 fee. The Board found the WCJ gave undue weight to a non-binding panel decision and insufficient weight to Labor Code and WCAB rules mandating consideration of responsibility, care, time, and results obtained. They concluded the full fee was reasonable given the successful settlement for the applicant, who gained control of their treatment and significant cash compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJCompromise and ReleaseMedicare Set Aside AccountAnnuityAttorney FeeLabor Code Section 4903(a)
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 1988

Claim of MacVittie v. Guterl Speciality Steel. Co.

The claimant suffered an occupational loss of hearing and appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board had deemed his claim for compensation benefits premature due to his ongoing exposure to injurious noise while employed by New York State Electric & Gas Company (NYSEG). The claimant testified to working outdoors without hearing protection, exposed to noise from coal and limestone unloading. The court found this testimony constituted substantial evidence supporting the Board’s determination that the claimant continued to be exposed to injurious noise, thus not qualifying as disabled under Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, also noting that the Board’s findings were not binding on NYSEG, a non-party, and lack of notice to NYSEG did not warrant reversal.

Occupational Loss of HearingInjurious Noise ExposurePremature ClaimWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DecisionSubstantial EvidenceEmployer LiabilityNotice RequirementHearing Protection
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Oglesby v. City of Newburgh

A probationary employee suffered a work-related injury and filed a workers' compensation claim, leading to his termination shortly after. He subsequently filed a discrimination complaint under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found in favor of the claimant, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, stating the employer had valid, non-discriminatory reasons for termination, including poor work performance and disciplinary issues. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

DiscriminationRetaliationWorkers' Compensation LawEmployment TerminationProbationary EmployeeSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionEmployerJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Picone v. Putnam Hosp.

In 2002, claimant sustained a non-work-related left knee injury, followed by surgery. In 2011, claimant suffered a work-related left knee injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined a 35% schedule loss of use of the left leg, apportioning 50% to the prior non-work-related injury, resulting in a 17.5% award. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. Claimant appealed the apportionment, arguing it should not apply to a schedule loss of use award. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing medical evidence from two orthopedic surgeons supporting the apportionment of the schedule loss of use award between the work-related and prior non-work-related injuries.

Schedule loss of useApportionmentKnee injuryWorkers' compensation appealMedical opinionPrior injuryNon-work-related injuryWork-related injuryAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. ADJ8098049
Regular
Oct 01, 2013

SEZETTE DUBAY, as conservator for CARI PILLO on behalf of JOHN PILLO (deceased) vs. CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC, INC., insured by AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF REDDING, PENNSYLVANIA, Adjusted by SEDGWICK CMS, et al.

This case concerns whether a deceased employee's death benefit claim falls under an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) carve-out agreement. The defendant argued that arbitration agreements bind non-signatories and should apply to death benefits, likening them to derivative wrongful death claims. However, the Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding Labor Code section 3201.5 clearly limits ADR to disputes "between employees and employers." The Board reasoned that a dependent's claim for death benefits is an independent statutory right, not a dispute between an employee and employer, thus outside the scope of the ADR carve-out.

ADR carve-outnon-signatorywrongful death claimdependentsemployee definitionLabor Code 3201.5collective bargaining agreementinter vivos benefitsarbitrationWCJ
References
11
Case No. ADJ10418270
Regular
Sep 09, 2025

Mahalia Wilson vs. Advanced Medical Personnel, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to examine the legal and factual issues surrounding a lien claim for attorney's fees. The initial WCJ decision had deemed the lien claim time-barred, citing the claimant's failure to object to a Compromise & Release (C&R) or timely seek reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR). However, the Appeals Board rescinded these findings, affirming that the lien claimant's previous actions, including filing the application for adjudication and the lien, provided sufficient notice. The Board also emphasized the WCJ's responsibility to identify and address all lien claims and clarified that a C&R agreement does not bind non-parties. The case is now remanded for further proceedings to determine a reasonable attorney's fee and identify the responsible paying parties.

Lien claimantAttorney's feesCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseTime-barredReconsiderationNoticeWaiverContract lawDue process
References
14
Case No. 13-CV-1459, 13-cv-0303
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2014

Roman Catholic Archdiocese v. Sebelius

This Memorandum Decision and Order addresses challenges brought by six New York-area Roman Catholic affiliated organizations against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraceptive coverage mandate. Plaintiffs argued the mandate, even with accommodations, substantially burdened their religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The court distinguished between "Diocesan plaintiffs" (exempt) and "non-Diocesan plaintiffs" (non-exempt). Summary judgment was granted for the non-Diocesan plaintiffs on their RFRA claims, finding a substantial burden and that the government failed to use the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling interest. Conversely, summary judgment was granted for the defendants against the Diocesan plaintiffs, as their exempt status meant no substantial burden on their religious exercise. An injunction was issued against enforcing the mandate on non-Diocesan plaintiffs.

Religious Freedom Restoration ActACA Contraception MandateReligious Non-ProfitsFirst AmendmentFree Exercise ClauseSummary JudgmentInjunctionHealth Care LawConstitutional ChallengeReligious Exemptions
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 1982

Claim of Lazier v. Zawaski

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision finding National Grange Mutual Insurance Company was the employer's carrier at the time of a claimant's accident. The central issue was whether National Grange successfully terminated its insurance contract with the employer prior to the October 10, 1978 accident. According to Workers' Compensation Law § 54(5), non-renewal requires 30 days' notice to both the employer and the Workers' Compensation Board. While the employer received timely notice of non-renewal, evidence of timely filing with the Board was deemed insufficient. The Board's implied factual finding against National Grange was upheld as supported by substantial evidence, leading to the affirmation of the decision that National Grange was the carrier.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CancellationNotice RequirementsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceTimely FilingContract TerminationCarrier Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wallace v. YWCA of Chemung County

The claimant appealed three decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board regarding the apportionment of her injuries from 1991 and 1996, and prior non-compensable injuries. The Board had allocated 40% of disability to the 1996 injury, 8% to the 1991 injury, and 52% to earlier injuries. The court found the appeal from the July 2001 decision was untimely and the apportionment issue in the August 2002 decision was precluded due to prior rulings. Furthermore, the denial of reconsideration or full Board review in the December 2002 decision was upheld as there was no abuse of discretion. Consequently, all appealed Workers' Compensation Board decisions were affirmed.

Apportionment of injuriesWorkers' Compensation LawBoard decisionsReconsiderationFull Board ReviewTimeliness of appealLaw of the caseAbuse of discretionMedical recordsPrior injuries
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 24,156 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