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. ADJ3695362 (LBO 0397415)
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

NORMAN MARTELL vs. DALTON TRUCKING, INC., REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied applicant Norman Martell's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's finding that Martell failed to prove his claimed industrial injuries arose from his employment. Despite multiple opportunities and extensions, Martell's counsel did not provide substantial medical evidence of industrial causation. Therefore, the Board found Martell did not meet his burden of proof.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryTruck DriverBack InjuryPsyche InjuryCauda Equina SyndromeUrinary Function LossBurden of ProofPreponderance of Evidence
References
2
Case No. 2015-877 N CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2017

People v. Todd (Norman)

Defendant Norman Todd was convicted of stalking in the fourth degree. The charges arose from three incidents in 2012 where he made inappropriate comments to a McDonald's employee and accosted her while she walked home. The District Court denied motions to suppress his statement and identification testimony. On appeal, the judgment of conviction was reversed and remitted for a new trial. The Appellate Term found the information and evidence sufficient. However, the court ruled that the trial court erred in its Sandoval ruling by permitting inquiry into a 27-year-old attempted rape conviction, deeming it unduly prejudicial. Additionally, the court erred in denying a challenge for cause to a prospective juror who stated he could not promise to be impartial due to having a daughter.

Stalking in the Fourth DegreePenal Law § 120.45(1)Sufficiency of InformationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceProbable Cause for ArrestPhoto Array SuggestivenessSandoval RulingJury SelectionChallenge for Cause
References
36
Case No. CA 14-01911
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2015

REGENCY OAKS CORPORATION v. NORMAN-SPENCER MCKERNAN, INC.

Regency Oaks Corporation, a professional employer organization, filed a fraud action against Norman-Spencer McKernan, Inc., an insurance agency. The plaintiff alleged that an employee of the defendant provided a falsified workers’ compensation insurance policy and a certificate of liability insurance, directing premium payments to his private company, PIM, under the false pretense that PIM was a division of the defendant. After receiving a penalty from the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, plaintiff received a forged letter confirming coverage. The defendant's employee was later terminated for embezzlement from another client. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability, which was affirmed by the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, concluding that plaintiff reasonably relied on the employee's apparent authority.

FraudApparent AuthorityWorkers' Compensation InsuranceEmployee MisconductSummary JudgmentInsurance Agency LiabilityProfessional Employer OrganizationFalsified DocumentsAgency LawAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. No. 12
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2021

The Matter of the Claim of Estate of Norman Youngjohn v. Berry Plastics Corporation

Decedent Norman Youngjohn, employed by Berry Plastics Corporation, suffered work-related injuries to his right shoulder and left elbow in 2014, leading to a workers' compensation claim. Before his permanent partial disability benefits claim for a schedule loss of use (SLU) award was resolved, Youngjohn died in March 2017 from a heart attack unrelated to his work injuries. He left no surviving spouse, minor children, or qualifying dependents. His estate sought the full value of the posthumous SLU award, arguing that 2009 amendments to the Workers' Compensation Law, which permitted lump sum SLU payments, rendered WCL § 15 (4) (d) inapplicable. This section limits an estate's recovery for unaccrued SLU benefits to reasonable funeral expenses in cases of unrelated death without qualifying survivors. The Workers' Compensation Board limited the award to funeral expenses, while the Appellate Division held that the estate was entitled to the portion accrued up to the date of death plus reasonable funeral expenses. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that the 2009 amendments on lump sum payments did not implicitly alter WCL § 15 (4) (d)'s limitation on an estate's recovery of posthumous SLU awards. The Court emphasized that section 15 (4) (d) remains in effect and must be harmonized with the amendments, limiting recovery to benefits accrued before death and reasonable funeral expenses for the remainder.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Lump Sum PaymentEstate RecoveryFuneral ExpensesStatutory InterpretationAccrual of BenefitsNew York Court of AppealsUnrelated Death
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Norman

The New York Court of Appeals addresses two larceny cases, People v Norman and People v King, which involve defendants failing to deliver goods after payment. The opinion clarifies the distinction between larceny by false promise and larceny by false pretenses, particularly emphasizing the unique "moral certainty" burden of proof for the former at the fact-finding level, not appellate review. For defendant Norman, accused of larceny by false promise, the Court reversed the Appellate Division's dismissal, finding sufficient evidence of his larcenous intent, and remitted the case. Conversely, in People v King, charged with larceny by false pretenses, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's judgment, concluding that the prosecution's theory was supported by evidence of a material misrepresentation of fact. This decision reinforces the legal standards for proving criminal intent in such fraud-related offenses.

LarcenyFalse PromiseFalse PretensesCriminal IntentBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewPenal LawCircumstantial EvidenceContract BreachCriminal Possession of Stolen Property
References
38
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06074
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2020

Theroux v. Resnicow

This case involves a dispute between Justin Theroux (respondent) and Norman J. Resnicow and Barbara Resnicow (appellants) concerning the legal boundary of their respective portions of a roof terrace in their building. The Supreme Court denied the Resnicows' motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim regarding the boundary and granted Theroux's motion for summary judgment on his trespass claim, declaring the boundary in his favor. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's finding that the cooperative offering plan's description of the boundary was ambiguous and that extrinsic evidence supported Theroux's interpretation. The court also found conclusive evidence that the Resnicows, particularly Norman J. Resnicow, committed trespass by entering Theroux's property multiple times without permission. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order solely to declare in plaintiff's favor on defendants' counterclaim, and, as so modified, affirmed the decision.

Property Boundary DisputeTrespass ClaimSummary JudgmentContract AmbiguityExtrinsic EvidenceAppellate ReviewReal Estate LawCooperative HousingDeclaratory ReliefFirst Department
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Feldman

The defendants, Clarence Norman and Jeffrey Feldman, chairman and executive director of the Kings County Democratic Committee, were indicted on 22 counts including grand larceny by extortion, coercion, and conspiracy, related to the 2002 primary campaigns of Judges Karen Yellen and Marcia Sikowitz. The defendants allegedly demanded Yellen and Sikowitz to campaign jointly, use specific vendors, and pay for campaign operations, threatening to withdraw Democratic Party endorsement and support if they refused. The judges, facing deadlines and lacking funds, partially acceded to these demands. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing insufficient evidence, unconstitutionality of the statutes, and lack of jurisdiction. The court, presided over by Justice Martin Marcus, denied the motions to dismiss, finding the grand jury evidence legally sufficient and the statutes constitutional as applied.

ExtortionCoercionGrand LarcenyConspiracyPolitical CorruptionElection Campaign FinanceJudicial EthicsParty PoliticsCampaign ThreatsConstitutional Challenges
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Weslin

This case involves eleven defendants, including Norman Weslin, charged with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) after being arrested outside a Planned Parenthood facility in Rochester, New York. Defendant Weslin moved to dismiss the information, arguing that FACE is unconstitutional. Chief Judge Larimer denied the motion, finding FACE to be content-neutral and subject to intermediate scrutiny. The court upheld FACE against First Amendment Free Speech and Free Exercise Clause challenges, and also affirmed that it is a valid exercise of Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause, as it regulates activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances ActFirst AmendmentFree SpeechFree Exercise of ReligionCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeAbortion Clinic ProtestsPhysical ObstructionContent-Neutral RegulationIntermediate Scrutiny
References
17
Case No. ADJ8816011
Regular
Oct 08, 2020

NORMAN MARTELL vs. DALTON TRUCKING, INC., REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration on defendant's petition regarding the date of cumulative trauma injury. The WCJ previously found applicant sustained a back injury but not a psychological injury. Defendant argued the WCJ erred by relying on an outdated medical report and that the claim is time-barred. The Board rescinded the prior award and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision specifically on the date of cumulative trauma injury. The Board expressed no final opinion on substantive issues, allowing for further reconsideration after a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNorman MartellDalton Trucking Inc.Redwood Fire and Casualty Insurance CompanyBerkshire Hathaway Homestate CompaniesADJ8816011Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWorkers' Compensation JudgeWCJ
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larosae v. American Pumping, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Windsor Machinery Company, was injured after falling 30 feet into a ravine while reconstructing a retaining wall. The wall was located partially on Windsor's property and partially on property owned by defendant Charles Norman, and was being repaired for the benefit of both. Plaintiff sued Norman and American Plumbing, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Norman moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint against him, arguing the accident occurred on Windsor's property and he was not an "owner" under the Labor Law. The Supreme Court denied Norman's motion and granted plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Norman. On appeal, the court affirmed that Norman qualified as an "owner" under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) because he had an interest in the property being improved. However, the court found Norman was not liable under common-law negligence or Labor Law § 200, as he did not exercise supervisory control over the work. Therefore, the order was modified to dismiss the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Norman, and affirmed as modified.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentOwner LiabilityNondelegable DutySupervisory ControlCommon-Law NegligenceAppellate ReviewRetaining WallConstruction AccidentProperty Interest
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 72 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