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
Aug 14, 2013

Chiari v. New York Racing Ass'n

Plaintiff Luis Alberto Chiari filed an action against the New York Racing Association (NYRA) and Local Union 3, I.B.E.W., alleging violations of COBRA, ADA, and LMRA stemming from his employment termination. Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson issued a Report and Recommendation, advising that the defendants' motions for summary judgment be granted and all of the plaintiff's claims be dismissed. District Judge Feuerstein reviewed the plaintiff's objections to this report. Finding the objections to be either reiterations of prior arguments or insufficiently specific, and discerning no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's findings, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, thereby granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing all of Chiari's claims with prejudice.

Employment LawDiscriminationSummary JudgmentCOBRA ViolationsADA ClaimsLMRA ClaimsBreach of Collective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationPro Se PlaintiffTermination
References
81
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2005

Nikolic v. Regent Wall Street Hotel

The claimant sustained work-related physical injuries and a subsequent psychiatric condition. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge allowed reports from a Serbian neuropsychiatrist to establish continuing psychiatric disability, despite objections from the employer and carrier concerning the doctor's credentials. The Workers’ Compensation Board, in an amended decision, rejected the objection to the Serbian doctor's report and found no prejudice to the carrier regarding a compensation award made prior to an independent medical examination. The appeals court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the carrier waived the right to object by not cross-examining the doctor, and that the Board had continuing jurisdiction to amend its initial decision.

foreign health care provider reportpsychiatric conditionadmissibility of evidenceWorkers’ Compensation Boardcontinuing jurisdictionwaiver of objectionindependent medical examinationappellate reviewNew York Workers' Compensationmedical credentials
References
10
Case No. 12-CV-656(LJV)(LGF)
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. 2191 Niagara St., LLC

This case addresses the defendants' objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and an appeal of his Decision and Order, arising from a Fair Labor Standards Act claim. The central issue is whether New York Labor Law § 196-d, which prohibits employers from retaining gratuities or purported gratuities, is preempted by the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) or the FLSA. The District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's findings, concluding that compliance with both federal and state law is possible, particularly by providing a required disclosure to customers. The court found no impossibility or obstacle preemption. Consequently, the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, and the case was recommitted for further proceedings.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawGratuities RetentionService Charges DistributionFederal PreemptionSupremacy ClauseInternal Revenue Code ComplianceMagistrate Judge ReviewMotion for Judgment on PleadingsStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. ADJ9163491; ADJ9163494
Regular
Jan 09, 2015

RIGOBERTO NORIEGA vs. BEST WESTERN TOWN & COUNTRY

This case concerns an applicant's petition for removal after the WCJ denied his objection to a QME's report. The applicant argued the QME report was untimely and prejudicial because it issued a zero impairment rating. The Appeals Board denied removal, finding the applicant waived his objection by not requesting a replacement QME panel until after receiving the unfavorable report. The Board cited precedent preventing parties from waiting to see if a report is favorable before objecting to its timeliness. Commissioner Zalewski dissented, believing the applicant could object after receipt as long as the objection preceded the replacement panel request.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME reportuntimely filingservice of reportreplacement panelobjectionstatutory timeframesLabor CodeAdministrative Director Rule
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2006

Rivera v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Russell Rivera, Jr. challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying him Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas, who issued a Report and Recommendation to remand the action for further administrative proceedings, citing deficiencies in the plaintiff's hearing. After defendant objected to a time limit, an Amended Report and Recommendation was issued, omitting the disputed time limitation. District Judge Richard J. Holwell, finding no clear error, adopted the Amended Report in its entirety, granting the Commissioner’s motion. The court's decision was based on the Administrative Law Judge's failure to fully develop the administrative record and adequately consider the treating physician’s opinion, Dr. Asbury, whose findings differed from a nonexamining medical consultant.

Social Security BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeDisability DeterminationAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) ReviewRemand OrderTreating Physician RuleMedical AssessmentHIV/AIDS ImpairmentHepatitis C DiagnosisProcedural Error
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 1995

Miller v. Chater

Plaintiff initiated this action to seek review of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' decision establishing June 1, 1992, as the onset date for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits due to alleged disability from mental retardation. Magistrate Judge Carol E. Heckman issued a Report and Recommendation, advising denial of the Secretary's motion for judgment on the pleadings and remand for reconsideration. The Magistrate Judge found errors in the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) assessment of the plaintiff's functional limitations, particularly regarding social domain, and noted the ALJ's failure to consider the retroactivity inference from the Zebley class action stipulation. District Judge Arcara reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and with no objections filed, adopted its findings. Consequently, the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, and the case was remanded to the Secretary for further reconsideration, emphasizing a misapplication of post-Zebley requirements for adjudicating children’s SSI benefits claims.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)Disability BenefitsMental RetardationChild Disability ClaimsAdministrative ReviewSocial Security ActAge-appropriate functioningMedical EvidenceFunctional LimitationsOnset Date
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sacks v. Gandhi Engineering, Inc.

The case involves plaintiff Farrell Sacks' employment discrimination claims against Gandhi Engineering, Inc., based on religion, age, and perceived disability following his termination. Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman issued a Report and Recommendation on August 23, 2013, advising partial grant and partial denial of the defendant's summary judgment motion. District Judge Deborah A. Batts adopted this Report and Recommendation after reviewing defendant's objections. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted for the religion and age discrimination claims but denied for the disability discrimination claim. The case will proceed to trial on the perceived disability discrimination claim.

Employment DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)Title VII of the Civil Rights ActSummary JudgmentReport and RecommendationPerceived DisabilityMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretext
References
67
Case No. ADJ3711106 (MON 0347573) ADJ2131962 (MON 0350490)
Regular
Sep 16, 2010

ELIZABETH JUANILLO NAVARRO vs. JACK IN THE BOX, GALLAGHER BASSETT, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case concerns a lien claimant, Arthur Malkin, D.C., and his representative, Lee Toney, who are challenging a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions. The lien claimant contends he was misadvised and did not receive a necessary report from the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The Board has provided the missing report and granted an additional 10 days for the lien claimant to file further objections to the $250 sanction. Failure to show good cause within this extended period will result in the imposition of sanctions under Labor Code section 5813.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNotice of Intention to Impose SanctionsLien claimantArthur Malkin D.C.Lee ToneyPetition for RemovalWCJ Report and RecommendationPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5813Sanctions
References
0
Case No. ADJ4213258 (VNO 0535826) ADJ1243492 (VNO 0535829)
Regular
May 14, 2009

JEROME HUDSON vs. SK MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, CRUM & FORSTER

This case involves an applicant's petition to rescind an order taking the matter off calendar. The applicant argued the defendant waived their right to a QME evaluation by failing to timely object to the treating physician's report. The Board denied the petition, finding the defendant's objection was likely under Labor Code section 4061, which does not have a strict time frame for objections to permanent disability ratings. Furthermore, the applicant reserved their rights to object to QME reports at trial, and any prejudice could be addressed through reconsideration.

Petition for removalMedical-legal evaluationLabor Code section 4062.2Treating physicianQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Permanent disability ratingLabor Code section 4061Substantial prejudiceIrreparable harmReconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ1666303 LAO 0885884
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

ALTHEA RUSSELL vs. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES, BROADSPIRE

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award finding the applicant sustained back, leg, and psyche injuries resulting in 65% permanent disability. The defendant argued that psychiatric medical reports were not substantial evidence and inadmissible. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the defendant waived objections to the psychiatric reports by failing to object at the mandatory settlement conference where discovery closed. Furthermore, the Board found the defendant's assertion regarding the content of the reports was factually inaccurate, and the reports did constitute substantial medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilitySubstantial Medical EvidenceAdmissibleDiscoveryMandatory Settlement ConferenceLabor Code Section 5502Invited Error
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 6,253 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