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. 2023 NY Slip Op 00892
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2023

Velasquez v. Sunstone Red Oak, LLC

Plaintiff Marianella Velasquez initiated a putative class action against Sunstone Red Oak, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law article 6 concerning unpaid service charges. Velasquez, who worked as a server through a staffing agency, claimed to be an employee of Sunstone. The Supreme Court denied both Velasquez's motion for sanctions and Sunstone's cross-motion for summary judgment. Upon review, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order regarding the cross-motion, finding that Sunstone successfully demonstrated Velasquez was not their employee, and Velasquez failed to provide sufficient counter-evidence. Consequently, the Appellate Division granted Sunstone's cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, and deemed Velasquez's appeal academic.

Labor Law Article 6Service ChargesGratuitiesEmployer-Employee RelationshipStaffing AgencySummary JudgmentSpoliation of EvidenceAppellate ReviewIndependent ContractorControl Test
References
9
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dittert v. Oak Tree Farm Dairy, Inc.

Plaintiffs Jason Dittert, Anthony Lombardo, and Walter J. Finn sued Oak Tree Farm Dairy, Inc., for personal injuries sustained during armed robberies while employed by Dairy Barn Stores, Inc. An earlier action against Dairy Barn was dismissed due to Workers' Compensation being the exclusive remedy. Plaintiffs argued Oak Tree was the 'alter ego' of Dairy Barn or a 'joint venturer,' but this claim was also barred by Workers' Compensation Law. On appeal, plaintiffs contended a Dairy Barn District Supervisor, allegedly an Oak Tree employee, breached a duty by failing to order a store closure after a robbery warning. The court determined the supervisor was a co-employee, rendering the action barred by Workers' Compensation Law, and found no proximate cause for the injuries. Consequently, Oak Tree's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint against it was dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAlter Ego DoctrineVicarious LiabilityCo-employee DefenseProximate CauseAppellate ProcedureComplaint DismissalEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. OAK 0278433 OAK 0295169 OAK 0307341 OAK 0307342 OAK 0307343 OAK 0321700
Regular
Jul 06, 2007

LATONIA PACE vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA/SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., and COUNTY OF ALAMEDA/AIG/ TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Defendant AIG concerning prior workers' compensation decisions. The Appeals Board dismissed AIG's petition because AIG was not newly aggrieved by the Board's prior order, which affirmed the original judge's decision without amendment. AIG failed to timely petition for reconsideration of the initial judge's decision, and therefore, cannot now seek review of it through this petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissedCumulative TraumaBilateral ShouldersUpper BackBilateral Upper ExtremitiesPermanent DisabilityWCJ Findings and AwardAggrieved Party
References
0
Case No. OAK 293546, OAK 295646 OAK 295645, OAK 322365
Regular
Aug 22, 2008

LAURA BERRY vs. GOLDEN RAIN FOUNDATION, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., AIG CLAIM SERVICES, ROSSMOOR MEDICAL CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Board denied American Home Assurance Co.'s petition and granted State Compensation Insurance Fund's petition for reconsideration, affirming the June 5, 2008 Findings, Award and Order, except for the employer's identity, which was deferred for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative TraumaTemporary DisabilityPermanent and StationaryBanker for AwardEmployer IdentificationSeparate EntitiesDevelop the RecordFindings Award and Order
References
1
Case No. OAK 0299866 OAK 0299867 OAK 0299868 OAK 0308810
Regular
Feb 08, 2008

JOAN STEPP vs. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the prior award. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings, requiring the administrative law judge to reconsider the applicant's permanent disability in light of the ruling in *Benson v. The Permanente Medical Group*. This decision emphasizes the need for physicians to provide specific apportionment of disability causation, consistent with Labor Code Sections 4663 and 4664, rather than combining disabilities from distinct injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award & OrderAdministrative Law JudgeCumulative TraumaUpper ExtremitiesLow BackSpinePermanent Total DisabilityApportionment
References
6
Case No. ADJ3218661 (OAK 0339889)
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

CHANCE ROLLINS vs. JOHN MARTIN STABLES, INC.; AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE administered by AIG, CLAIMS SERVICES

The Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding the WCJ's ruling was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and denied the applicant's request for a neurology consultation under Labor Code §4601(a). The matter was returned to the trial level with instructions to issue an order for a new QME panel in neurology, as Dr. Jamasbi's request for a consultative neurological evaluation constituted good cause for a new panel under 8 Cal. Code Regs. §31.7. Attorney fees for the ex parte communication were upheld.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code 4601(a)Labor Code 4062.3QMEAgreed Medical EvaluatorNeurological ConsultMedical DirectorSpecialty Panel
References
0
Case No. ADJ3218661 ( OAK 0339889)
Regular
Apr 09, 2009

, CHANCE ROLLINS vs. , JOHN MARTIN STABLES, INC.; AIG CLAIM SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and denied their Petition for Removal. The defendant sought to challenge an order denying their request for a new Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in a neurology specialty, arguing the chosen QME's specialty was inappropriate. The WCAB found the order at issue was not a final order and thus not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the WCAB determined that the defendant had previously agreed to the QME and failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or substantial prejudice to warrant removal.

Qualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelneurologyneurosurgerypain managementtreating physicianadministrative law judgepetition for reconsiderationpetition for removalinterlocutory order
References
7
Case No. OAK 0254576, OAK 0254577, OAK 0282653
Regular
Jul 30, 2007

PATRICIA LE MELLE vs. FED EX, OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, METRO ONE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration due to insufficient explanation from the trial judge regarding medical opinions, temporary disability allocation, and permanent disability apportionment. The original decision is rescinded and the case is returned for further proceedings and a new decision. Notably, the Board observed that Fed Ex likely is not liable for back treatment and that a prior finding of cumulative injury against Metro One stands.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings Awards OrdersClerical ErrorIndustrial InjuryTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)ApportionmentCumulative Injury
References
1
Case No. OAK 240649 OAK 240651 OAK 279879
Regular
Jan 15, 2008

BUNNIE ORANGE vs. HILTON HOTEL CORPORATION, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the administrative law judge incorrectly used the 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule instead of the 2005 Schedule for the applicant's cumulative trauma injury. The Board also found the calculation of permanent disability indemnity was improper and remanded the case for re-rating under the 2005 Schedule. Upon remand, any overlap between the current award and a prior stipulated award must be identified and subtracted before calculating the final indemnity.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDBUNNIE ORANGEHILTON HOTEL CORPORATIONSPECIALTY RISK SERVICESOAK 240649OAK 240651OAK 279879OPINION AND ORDERGRANTING RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 457 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