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

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. ADJ3691698 (SFO 0463767)
Regular
May 22, 2009

FAITH LATIMER vs. CALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTER; permissibly self-insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding an injury sustained by applicant Faith Latimer. The defendant sought to introduce new evidence of a subsequent injury and diagnostic testing, claiming it impacted applicant's credibility and the prior decision. However, the Board found the defendant failed to meet the requirements for newly discovered evidence under WCAB Rule 10856, as they did not demonstrate how the evidence could not have been discovered earlier or its effect on the prior findings. The Board concluded the new evidence would not alter the decision awarding temporary disability and medical treatment for the initial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationReopeningIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderLow BackNeckLeft ShoulderCompensable ConsequenceTotal Temporary Disability
References
1
Case No. ADJ3156337 (FRE 0209931) ADJ4199467 (FRE 0209932)
Regular
Nov 20, 2008

FRANK FLORES vs. NICKEL'S PAYLESS STORES, WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINSITRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an award for a 1999 right foot and ankle injury, specifically addressing the defendant's claims of error in permanent disability calculation without apportionment and the exclusion of medical evidence. The Board intends to admit the Agreed Medical Evaluator's reports into evidence, which the WCJ had previously excluded. This decision will allow the Board to review all relevant medical evidence before making a final determination on apportionment and the applicant's claimed injuries.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidencePetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings Award and OrderMinutes of Hearing
References
0
Case No. ADJ8518632
Regular
May 09, 2017

HORACIO MONTOYA vs. CBC FRAMING, INC., ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, A B GALLAGHER BASSETT

The WCAB granted the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding a prior WCJ order compelling a Functional Capacity Evaluation. Removal was granted because the WCJ's order was based on a medical report that had not been formally admitted into evidence, preventing meaningful review. The Board will now admit the defendant's medical report into evidence for the limited purpose of determining the Petition for Removal. This action is an extraordinary remedy due to the prejudice caused by relying on unadmitted evidence.

RemovalFunctional Capacity EvaluationIndustrial InjuryPrejudiceIrreparable HarmAdmitted EvidenceQualified Medical EvaluationExhibit AAdministrative Law JudgePetition for Removal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Patino

The defendant, a police officer, moved to dismiss an indictment charging him with offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, attempted grand larceny in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and defrauding the government. These charges stemmed from allegations that he falsely claimed permanent disability and improperly collected money from Nassau County. The defendant's motion to dismiss was based on claims of selective and vindictive prosecution, defective Grand Jury proceedings (improper instructions and failure to introduce exculpatory evidence), legally insufficient evidence, and a defective indictment. The court, presided over by Jack Mackston, J., denied the motion to dismiss, finding no evidence of selective or vindictive prosecution by the District Attorney, adequate Grand Jury instructions, and legally sufficient evidence. The court also denied dismissal in the interest of justice but partially granted a motion for disclosure of certain statistics.

Criminal Procedure LawGrand JuryIndictmentSelective ProsecutionVindictive ProsecutionFalse InstrumentGrand LarcenyGovernment FraudPolice Misconduct AllegationsDisability Fraud
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
Case No. ADJ6733204
Regular
Aug 11, 2014

MARIA TORRES vs. MAG INSTRUMENTS, INC.; PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration in this case. The lien claimant, Western Imaging Services, failed to present any evidence at the lien trial to support its claim for reimbursement for medical-legal services. Specifically, no evidence was introduced to establish Western Imaging Services' status as a licensed professional photocopier or its exemption from licensing requirements under Business and Professions Code §22451(b). The Board adopted the WCJ's report, emphasizing that merely filing a document does not constitute evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantBusiness and Professions CodeProfessional PhotocopierLicensing RequirementMedical-Legal ServicesBurden of ProofWCJ ReportState Bar Exemption
References
0
Case No. ADJ7925614
Regular
Feb 23, 2017

Kelly Truesdell vs. VON'S GROCERY COMPANY

This case involves an employee, Kelly Truesdell, who sought workers' compensation for injuries sustained during his employment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed a prior decision finding Truesdell to be permanently and totally disabled. The defendant, Von's Grocery Company, had argued that the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) opinions were insufficient and presented new evidence of improvement. However, the WCAB found the AME's opinions, particularly those of Dr. Angerman, constituted substantial evidence supporting the 100% permanent disability rating based on objective findings and the applicant's inability to compete in the labor market. The defendant's request to introduce newly discovered evidence was also rejected due to a lack of required proof.

WCABReconsiderationAgreed Medical ExaminerPermanent Total DisabilitySubstantial EvidenceFailed Back Surgery SyndromeAMA GuidesWhole Person ImpairmentLabor Code Section 46622005 PDRS
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giannetti v. Darling Delaware Carting Co.

The plaintiff suffered severe burns while employed at Arby's. During the damages phase of the trial, the defendant sought to introduce safety gloves as evidence to mitigate damages, arguing that their use would have prevented or lessened the injuries. The plaintiff objected, contending that such evidence was improper for the damages phase and that 'seat belt' precedents were not applicable due to the lack of a statutory mandate for safety gloves. The court, drawing an analogy to seat belt cases, ruled that safety gloves could be admitted as evidence for mitigation of damages if the defendant proves their availability, the reasonableness of their use, and a causal link between non-use and injuries. This decision effectively allows the introduction of pre-accident conduct to mitigate damages in certain circumstances beyond statutory mandates.

Mitigation of DamagesSafety GlovesSeat Belt DefensePersonal InjuryWorkplace AccidentEvidence AdmissibilityPre-accident ConductEmployer LiabilityReasonable Prudent Person StandardTort Law
References
15
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 22200 [75 Misc 3d 60]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2022

People v. Washington (Michael)

In People v Washington, the Supreme Court, Appellate Term, reversed Michael Washington's conviction for attempted assault and harassment. The Criminal Court had allowed the prosecution to introduce the complainant's prior statements to the police and a domestic incident report, despite the complainant not testifying, which the Appellate Term ruled violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The court found that the People failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that Washington caused the witness's unavailability, as required after a Sirois hearing. As the complainant's out-of-court statements were the sole evidence against Washington, the error was not harmless, leading to the dismissal of the accusatory instrument. Presiding Judge Aliotta dissented, contending that the People had provided sufficient evidence of defendant's unlawful influence.

Criminal ProcedureConfrontation ClauseHearsay EvidenceWitness TamperingDomestic Violence CasesAppellate ReversalSixth AmendmentEvidentiary ErrorSirois HearingAttempted Assault
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 10,537 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