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

Messina v. Lufthansa German Airlines

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 4, 1977. Plaintiff sued Lufthansa German Airlines and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers for breach of an employment contract and sought reinstatement. The central issue revolved around the timeliness of Lufthansa's notice to extend plaintiff's probationary employment, which the Trial Term deemed untimely by applying General Construction Law § 20 to the contract's 10-day notice period. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the notice, issued on November 11, 1975, was one day late based on the calculation method. A dissenting opinion argued against the application of § 20, asserting it inappropriately curtails employer rights in probationary contracts.

Contract interpretationProbationary employmentTerminationTimeliness of noticeGeneral Construction LawAppellate reviewDissenting opinionEmployment lawUnion agreementSeniority status
References
6
Case No. 10-02036-F
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2011

Hernandez v. City of Corpus Christi

Plaintiff Josie Hernandez sued her former employer, the City of Corpus Christi, for employment discrimination and retaliation. She alleged discrimination based on gender, national origin, race, and age, claiming she was passed over for promotions and experienced a hostile work environment. She also brought claims for constructive discharge, disparate treatment, disparate impact, and breach of contract, and sought declaratory judgment regarding the release of her birthdate. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing claims related to conduct before November 20, 2007, hostile work environment, disparate impact, constructive discharge, retaliation, and declaratory judgment. However, claims for disparate treatment and breach of contract, along with discrimination claims for conduct after November 20, 2007, were retained for trial.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VII of Civil Rights ActAge Discrimination in Employment ActTexas Commission on Human Rights ActFailure to PromoteGender DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRace Discrimination
References
100
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelley v. Lynaugh

This case involves appeals and cross-appeals concerning the validity of various absentee and special ballots cast in a November 5, 2013, general election for Councilmember, 4th Council District, Town of Brookhaven. Constance M. Kepert appealed parts of a Supreme Court order, and Michael A. Loguercio, Jr., cross-appealed other parts. The appellate court modified the lower court's determinations regarding the casting and canvassing of specific ballots. The modifications were based on voter intent derived from ballot markings, as well as adherence to Election Law regarding signature verification and timely ballot receipt. Ultimately, the court directed the Suffolk County Board of Elections not to cast or canvass ballots designated as exhibits 2, 8, and 17, and to cast and canvass ballots designated as exhibits 3, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.

Election DisputeBallot ValidityVoter IntentAbsentee BallotsSpecial BallotsCanvassing ProceduresElection Law Article 16Suffolk County ElectionsAppellate ReviewGeneral Election 2013
References
8
Case No. CV-24-1603
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of Mario Ayars

Claimant Mario Ayars appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding his right knee injury. The Board initially ruled an SLU award for a 20% SLU of the right leg, which was reversed and remitted by the Appellate Division due to an inaccurate assessment of medical opinions. Upon remittal, the Board again determined an SLU award was appropriate, specifically a 20% SLU for the right leg, and did not allow further submissions. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying further record development, crediting Dr. DiBenedetto's opinion, and finding the 20% SLU award supported by Dr. Touliopoulos's November 2020 report regarding range of motion.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Knee InjuryMedical Opinion DiscrepancyAppellate Division ReviewRemittal DecisionSubstantial Evidence StandardRange of Motion AssessmentMaximum Medical ImprovementBoard's Discretion
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01171 [235 AD3d 591]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Lopez v. 18-20 Park 84 Corp.

Plaintiff Felipe A. Lazaro Lopez, a painter employed by Dowd Interiors, Inc., suffered a fall from a ladder during renovation work. Lopez filed a personal injury lawsuit against 18-20 Park 84 Corp., the building owner, under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court of New York County initially granted Lopez's motion for partial summary judgment on liability against 18-20 Park 84 Corp. and denied Dowd's motion to dismiss third-party claims for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to Lopez. However, it modified the lower court's order by granting Dowd's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the common-law indemnification and contribution claims. This modification was based on the finding that Lopez did not suffer a 'grave injury' as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallIndemnificationContributionGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law
References
10
Case No. ADJ1463911 (AHM 0090590)
Regular
Oct 06, 2008

SUZETTE LADAY vs. COUNTY OF LA/DEPT. OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Permissibly Self-Insured, administered by ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed late, two days after the statutory deadline. The Board noted clerical errors in the original award regarding vocational rehabilitation benefit dates and rates, which it corrected despite the dismissal of the reconsideration petition. The corrected award specifies vocational rehabilitation benefits from November 20, 2002, to November 2, 2007, with specific weekly rates for different periods within that timeframe.

LadayCounty of LA/Dept. of Children and Family ServicesAcclamation Insurance Management ServicesPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingClerical ErrorVocational Rehabilitation BenefitsLabor Code SectionsCode of Civil ProcedureBoard Rule 10390
References
6
Case No. ADJ7293861
Regular
Jun 23, 2017

SANDY SEPHERS vs. STANISLAUS COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision. The WCJ found the defendant's utilization review (UR) of the applicant's medication request untimely. Although the WCJ's reasoning for the untimeliness was partially flawed, the Board affirmed the outcome. The defendant failed to timely communicate its UR decision, which was made on November 20, 2015, and not issued until November 23, 2015, exceeding the statutory 24-hour communication requirement after a UR determination.

Utilization ReviewRequest For AuthorizationNon-Certification RecommendationuntimelyCorvelDr. MarlesDr. RhoadesoxycodoneSomacarisoprodol
References
2
Case No. ADJ4500251
Regular
Apr 07, 2025

EALISE CRUMB vs. APC TECHNOLOGY, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Ealise Crumb's petition for reconsideration against APC Technology, Inc. and State Compensation Insurance Fund. The Board found the petition to be untimely as it was filed on January 27, 2025, past the December 20, 2024 deadline for reconsideration of the PWCJ's November 20, 2024 order. Additionally, the Board confirmed its timely action on the petition within 60 days of transmission, as required by the amended Labor Code section 5909. The untimeliness of the filing rendered the Board without jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909untimely petition60-day periodtransmission dateEAMSnotice of transmissionservice of reportjurisdictional time limit
References
4
Case No. ADJ405114 (ANA 0361653 ) ADJ3423623 (ANA 0402305)
Regular
Feb 13, 2012

JOSE ROSALES vs. DYNAMIC DETAIL, BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES INC.; INTERCARE, BROADSPIRE, CORVEL

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by lien claimants, L. A. Regional Surgical Center and Isaac Verbukh, M.D., regarding an order disallowing their liens. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely because it was filed more than 20 days after the lien claimants received the Order Disallowing Liens on November 21, 2011. Although the WCJ's calculations regarding the objection to the Notice of Intention to Disallow Liens were erroneous, this did not affect the untimeliness of the petition for reconsideration. The Board emphasized that the 20-day period for filing a petition for reconsideration is jurisdictional.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Disallowing LiensLien ClaimantsTimelinessLabor Code Section 5903Jurisdictional Time LimitUntimely PetitionProof of ServiceService of Order
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 1983

Claim of Kearsch v. Town of Hempstead

This case involves an appeal of a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning the timely filing of a C-250 reimbursement form by a self-insured employer from the Special Fund. Although the C-250 form was missing from the board's file when permanency was established on November 19, 1981, evidence indicated the Special Fund was aware of the claim prior to this date, having attended a hearing on November 20, 1980, and a conference on February 21, 1980. The board concluded the form had been timely served but merely misplaced. The court affirmed the board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

C-250 FormReimbursement ClaimSpecial FundSelf-Insured EmployerTimely FilingPermanency DeterminationWorkers' Compensation BoardSubstantial EvidenceAppeal DecisionMisplaced Document
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,044 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