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. ADJ2053200 (SFO 0448615)
Regular
Oct 04, 2010

ALLAN LAU vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL RITZ-CARLTON SAN FRANCISCO

The Appeals Board reversed the WCJ's decision, finding that the applicant's condition became permanent and stationary (P&S) on February 17, 2009, as reported by Dr. Tse. Despite recommendations for further conservative treatment and the applicant's eventual decision to undergo knee replacement surgery, the Board found no medical evidence of temporary disability after February 17, 2009. They concluded the WCJ erred in awarding temporary disability between February 17, 2009, and October 6, 2009, and again from November 30, 2009, granting the defendant's petition to terminate temporary disability as of February 17, 2009.

Permanent and Stationary (P&S)Temporary Total Disability (TTD)ReconsiderationFindings and OrderPetition to Terminate LiabilityMedical EvidenceViscosupplementationKnee Replacement SurgeryIndustrial InjuryTreating Physician
References
0
Case No. ADJ4447791 (SDO 0259860)
Regular
May 14, 2018

HARRY PIFER vs. LA MESA APPLIANCE COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision. The Board affirmed the original decision but amended the findings of fact and award. Crucially, the Board clarified that the applicant did not sustain a psychiatric injury. However, temporary total disability was awarded for specific periods from February 12, 2004, to March 21, 2007, and from June 12, 2011, to November 12, 2014.

PiferLa Mesa ApplianceState Compensation Insurance FundADJ4447791ADJ813560Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardpsychiatric injurytemporary total disability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Alamin v. Down Town Taxi, Inc.

Claimant, a taxi driver, sustained neck and back injuries in a February 2008 work-related motor vehicle accident. His workers' compensation claim was established. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits from February 2008 to October 2009, finding a moderate causally related disability after November 2008. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board later rescinded awards after November 20, 2008, ruling that no further causally related disability existed from that date. Claimant's subsequent request for reconsideration and/or full Board review was denied. The current court dismissed the appeals from the WCLJ's January 2013 decision and the Board's January 2014 decision due to procedural irregularities (direct appeal from WCLJ and untimely filing of notice of appeal). The court affirmed the Board’s March 2014 decision denying reconsideration, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion or act arbitrarily, as the claimant failed to present new evidence or demonstrate a material change in condition.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureDismissal of AppealReconsideration DenialCausally Related DisabilityMotor Vehicle AccidentIndependent Medical ExaminationProcedural BarAbuse of DiscretionTimeliness of Appeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheahan v. Brady

Plaintiff Danielle Sheahan, a white woman, was terminated from her position at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in April 1992, after being hired in May 1991. The defendant, the Secretary of the Treasury, claimed she was fired for submitting an altered college transcript. However, the plaintiff alleged racial and color discrimination, asserting that her mostly Black co-workers and supervisors conspired against her, fabricating the transcript alteration accusation. Sheahan pursued administrative remedies, first with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which dismissed her complaint for lack of jurisdiction on October 16, 1992. Subsequently, she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which also dismissed her case on October 22, 1992, based on the erroneous belief that an MSPB appeal was still pending. Plaintiff then filed a civil suit in federal court on November 12, 1992. Critically, on November 9, 1992, the Treasury Department had filed a Request to Reopen the EEOC's October 22 decision. The court examined the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, specifically concerning the exhaustion of administrative remedies and the finality of EEOC actions. Under 29 C.F.R. § 1613.234, a timely request to reopen by either party renders an EEOC decision non-final for the purpose of initiating a civil action. Consequently, the defendant's request to reopen on November 9, 1992, made the EEOC's October 22 decision non-final before Sheahan filed her lawsuit on November 12, 1992. Therefore, the court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice, and suggested that either party could renew a request to reopen the EEOC decision, anticipating it would be granted given the EEOC's original erroneous finding.

Federal employment discriminationTitle VIICivil Rights ActRacial discriminationColor discriminationWrongful terminationAdministrative exhaustionEEOC decision finalitySubject matter jurisdictionMotion to dismiss
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2014

Matter of Empara v. New Rochelle School District

The claimant, an electrician, sustained two work-related left leg injuries in 2003 and 2009. A 37.5% schedule loss of use was initially stipulated for the 2003 injury. After the 2009 injury, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) awarded benefits based on a 20% loss of use without considering the prior award. The employer appealed, and the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed the WCLJ's decision, finding no increased schedule loss of use greater than the previously awarded amount. The claimant then appealed the Board's decision, which was affirmed, upholding the timeliness of the employer's appeal and the Board's finding that there was no new or greater increase in the schedule loss of use related to the 2009 accident.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of UsePermanent ImpairmentMedical GuidelinesAppellate ReviewTimeliness of AppealBoard DecisionLeft Leg InjuryOrthopedic OpinionSubstantial Evidence Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2013

Claim of Bleakley v. Verizon Services Group

Claimant suffered a work-related injury in November 2009, leading to the employer's carrier and the employer paying wages in lieu of workers' compensation benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, awarded benefits, and granted $200 in counsel fees. The Workers' Compensation Board subsequently modified this determination by rescinding the counsel fees, stating there was no present source of funds for an attorney's lien. Claimant appealed this modification. However, the Board issued an amended decision on March 12, 2013, which rendered the appeal moot, resulting in its dismissal without costs.

Counsel FeesAttorney's LienEmployer ReimbursementSchedule Loss of Use AwardMoot AppealAppellate Division ReviewBoard Decision ModificationClaim EstablishmentWage Continuation PaymentsAppeal Dismissal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Stabak v. ISS International

The case involves a claimant appealing three decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board. The claimant, a former maintenance worker, alleged an injury in November 1991, which he did not report, followed by his termination in December 1991. His initial workers' compensation claim was disallowed in March 1995 due to insufficient notice, and reconsideration was denied in June 1996. Separately, in October 1995, he filed a discrimination claim under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge, which was dismissed as untimely in November 1996. The court dismissed the appeal from the March 1995 decision as untimely filed. It affirmed the Board’s decisions from June 1996 and November 1996, concluding there was no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration and that the discrimination claim was indeed untimely.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeUntimely AppealTimely FilingNotice of InjuryAbuse of DiscretionDenial of ReconsiderationAppellate ReviewDiscriminatory PracticeEmployment Termination
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2013

Matter of Hillman v. Kohl's New York D.C.

Claimant had an established workers' compensation claim for a neck and shoulder injury from 2007, receiving temporary total disability benefits since 2008. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) continued these benefits in November 2012 and May 2013, with the latter decision allowing payment suspension if the claimant failed to provide current medical evidence. The employer appealed both WCLJ decisions, but the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed. This court found that the Board abused its discretion by failing to consider issues properly raised by the employer regarding the May 2013 decision, which the Board had deemed 'moot' based on its refusal to consider similar arguments for the November 2012 decision. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings to allow for a proper review of the employer's arguments.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Total DisabilityMedical EvidenceBoard ReviewAppellate DivisionRemittalScope of ReviewAbuse of DiscretionFact-Finding RolePreserved Issue
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 1978

Claim of McFadden v. Duo Plumbing & Heating Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding death benefits. The appeal was filed on November 15, 1978, concerning the death of Moses Abram on June 3, 1975, while in the employ of Duo Plumbing & Heating Corp. The Board awarded death benefits to Abram's four alleged illegitimate children, aged 5 to 12 years, finding them to be acknowledged out-of-wedlock dependent children. This finding was based on a letter from a principal, the decedent's 1973 joint income tax return, and testimony from his brother and the children's mother. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the finding and noting that acknowledged illegitimate children of tender years are presumed dependent on their father.

Death benefitsIllegitimate childrenDependencyWorkers' CompensationAutomobile accidentBoard decision affirmedEvidence sufficiencyParental dependency presumptionOut-of-wedlock childrenClaimant dependency
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Brown v. Orange County Home & Infirmary

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from November 10, 1999, which prevented her from raising certain issues. Previously, a WCLJ had made awards for reduced earnings but later stopped payments. Despite being advised to provide updated medical and financial records for a subsequent hearing, the claimant failed to do so, leading the WCLJ to close the case and make prior tentative rates permanent. The Board denied review of the claimant's arguments regarding continuing disability and insufficient rates, concluding that these issues had not been raised before the WCLJ. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding its conclusion rational given the claimant's failure to present evidence or request further development of the record at the WCLJ hearing, as per 12 NYCRR 300.13 (e) (1) (iii).

Workers' Compensation AppealReduced EarningsDisability ClaimMedical EvidenceProcedural IssuesBoard ReviewWCLJ DecisionEvidence SubmissionFailure to Raise IssuesAdministrative Law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 23,674 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