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. ADJ3416937 (SRO 0141443) ADJ4476347 (SRO 0118020)
Regular
Apr 25, 2011

TIMOTHY ROBINSON vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case concerns apportionment of permanent disability for an injured correctional officer. The applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury to his neck, resulting in a 12% permanent disability after initial apportionment. The WCJ calculated a total permanent disability of 43%, then apportioned 20% to non-industrial factors under Labor Code section 4663. Further apportionment occurred for a prior low back injury under Labor Code section 4664, using a converted rating from the old schedule to the new AMA Guides. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding no prohibition against applying both section 4663 and section 4664 apportionment, and deeming the prior injury properly converted and subtracted. A dissenting opinion argued that the older rating schedule's "overlap" concept is incompatible with the current AMA Guides method, and that the defendant failed to prove overlap for the prior injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCounty of SonomaTimothy RobinsonCorrectional OfficerIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 4663Labor Code Section 4664
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lloyd v. New Era Cap Co.

The claimant, a sewing machine operator, suffered a permanent low back injury in a 2003 workplace fall, leading to an award of workers' compensation benefits. The self-insured employer sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, arguing for apportionment of the disability with a preexisting 1975 gunshot wound. However, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied this request, finding the claimant to have a permanent total disability solely due to the 2003 accident, thus precluding reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d). The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's authority to reclassify disabilities and its non-binding nature of party stipulations that are not properly approved. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that the 2003 accident alone caused the permanent total disability.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursementPermanent Total DisabilityPreexisting ImpairmentApportionmentMedical EvidenceBoard AuthorityStipulationAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2012

Brooklyn Center for Independence of Disabled v. Bloomberg

This case, initiated shortly after Hurricane Irene in 2011, addresses whether New York City's emergency preparedness plans adequately serve individuals with disabilities. Non-profit organizations and individual plaintiffs sued the City of New York and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, alleging a systemic failure to meet the needs of disabled persons, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and New York City Human Rights Law. Specific concerns include inaccessible public transportation for evacuations, lack of high-rise evacuation strategies, ineffective emergency shelters, and insufficient provisions for immediate assistance for people with disabilities. The court found that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims and subsequently granted their motion for class certification, with a modified class definition, allowing the case to proceed as a class action.

Disability RightsEmergency PreparednessClass ActionAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActNew York City Human Rights LawHurricane IreneMobility DisabilitiesPublic SafetyInjunctive Relief
References
53
Case No. ADJ9443336 ADJ9779744
Regular
Nov 25, 2019

JAMES KWASIGROCH vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFIT TRUST FUND OF CALIFORNIA

This case concerns the calculation of combined permanent disability for Subsequent Injuries Benefit Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits. The applicant, James Kwasigroch, received awards for a prior disability of 63% and a subsequent disability of 74%. The central dispute was whether to add these percentages directly or use a Combined Values Chart (CVC) as the trial judge did. The Appeals Board reversed the trial judge's decision, holding that non-overlapping prior and subsequent disabilities should be added based on the precedent set in *Bookout v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.* This resulted in a finding of 100% combined permanent disability and an adjustment to attorney's fees.

Subsequent Injuries Benefit Trust FundCombined Values ChartBookout v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Permanent Disability RatingApportionmentMultiple Disabilities TablesPyramidingOverlapNon-overlapping disabilitiesLabor Code section 4751
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled v. Bloomberg

The case involves two non-profit organizations and two individuals suing the City of New York and its Mayor, alleging that the City's emergency preparedness plans fail to adequately address the needs of people with disabilities, thereby violating federal and local disability laws. The core issue addressed in this opinion is the plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2). Defendants opposed the motion, primarily asserting that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court granted the motion, finding that both individual and organizational plaintiffs demonstrated sufficient standing and that the proposed class met all the criteria for certification. The class, as modified, includes all people with disabilities within New York City affected by its emergency preparedness programs, and the case will proceed to trial.

Disability RightsEmergency PreparednessClass ActionStandingADARehabilitation ActNYCHRLNew York CityDisaster PlanningInjunctive Relief
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levy v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation

This case addresses a disability discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by Daniel Levy against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and several individuals. Levy, a Forester 1 with diabetes, hearing loss, and a learning disability, alleged his employer failed to provide reasonable accommodations and retaliated against him. The Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were untimely, accommodations were met, or that their actions were for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The Court granted the Defendants' motion, ruling that claims prior to June 4, 2013, were time-barred. Furthermore, the Court determined Levy failed to demonstrate he could perform essential job functions, particularly writing, even with requested accommodations, and found Defendants provided legitimate reasons for alleged retaliatory actions.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Section 504 Rehabilitation ActNew York Human Rights Law (NYHRL)Reasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentForester EmploymentDiabetesLearning Disability
References
50
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02346 [182 AD3d 890]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2020

Matter of Schiffer v. Charming Shoppes of Del.

Claimant Sheila Schiffer suffered two work-related back injuries in 2000 and 2007, leading to a permanent partial disability. The employer, Charming Shoppes of Delaware, and its workers' compensation carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d). The Workers' Compensation Board discharged the Fund, determining the carrier failed to provide sufficient and timely evidence and that a prior stipulation was legally non-binding. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the carrier failed to establish both that the claimant's preexisting impairment hindered her general employability and that her permanent disability was materially and substantially greater due to both injuries.

Workers' Compensation Law § 15(8)Special Disability FundReimbursement ClaimsPreexisting ImpairmentPermanent Partial DisabilityMaterially and Substantially GreaterGeneral EmployabilityTimeliness of EvidenceStipulation EnforceabilityEstoppel
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. New York State & Local Retirement Systems

Petitioner, a taxpayer services representative, sustained a back injury in March 1981 while lifting forms, leading to a decline in attendance and eventual termination in November 1989. She applied for accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits, both of which were denied by the Comptroller. The accidental disability claim was denied because the incident was not deemed an 'accident' under Retirement and Security Law § 63. The ordinary disability claim was denied as untimely, having been filed approximately six months after her termination, exceeding the 90-day limit stipulated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 62. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the ordinary disability denial due to untimeliness and transferred the accidental disability challenge to this Court. This Court confirmed the Comptroller's determination on both counts, rejecting the petitioner's estoppel argument regarding the untimely ordinary disability application and finding substantial evidence to support the finding that the injury did not constitute an 'accident' within the meaning of the relevant law, as it resulted from ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityOrdinary DisabilityUntimely ApplicationEstoppel Against GovernmentWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryDefinition of AccidentOrdinary Employment DutiesSubstantial Evidence Review
References
16
Case No. ADJ3192331
Regular
Feb 17, 2010

AURORA REALIVASQUEZ vs. TURBOT JET PRODUCTS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that awarded 50% permanent disability, apportioned from a prior award. The applicant argued the defendant failed to prove the prior award's disability overlapped with the current injury. The WCAB denied reconsideration, finding the defendant met its burden by demonstrating overlapping subjective factors of disability between the prior and current injuries, based on medical reports from Dr. Capen and Dr. Danzig. This overlap in disability affecting the same earning abilities justified the apportionment under Labor Code section 4664(b).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryShoulder InjuryBimanual InjuryCumulative Trauma
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2012

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff John J. Hamzik sued the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and several individual employees, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to file a second amended complaint. The District Court, finding that many claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the remaining claims failed to state a plausible cause of action, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, the cross-motion was denied as futile, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionTitle VIIADEAADAEleventh Amendment ImmunityAdministrative ExhaustionMotion to Dismiss
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 8,952 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