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 18, 1997

Merlino v. Schneider

The petitioner, a Spanish-speaking community-service worker, was denied civil service employment as a probation investigator after failing the oral portion of an examination. She challenged this denial, arguing that the oral exam lacked objective standards and that she was denied proper administrative review due to the respondents' refusal to provide an audiotape of her examination. The Supreme Court initially denied her petition, dismissing the proceeding. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment, finding significant procedural shortcomings in the examination process and the administrative appeal. The court concluded that the petitioner's right to have her competency judged in a competitive examination process was violated and remitted the matter to the respondents for reconsideration pursuant to objective standards.

Civil ServiceOral ExaminationEmployment CertificationAdministrative ReviewObjective StandardsDue ProcessPublic EmploymentRemandAppealDiscretion
References
10
Case No. ADJ7395101
Regular
Jan 13, 2016

Phillips Wylly Jr. vs. Omni Hotel, Arch Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the original findings regarding the applicant's right thumb injury, as it was based on an unclear stipulation and the employer's insurer's identity was irrelevant. However, the Board affirmed the denial of the applicant's request to strike the medical report of Dr. Ronald Carlish. This denial was due to the applicant's waiver of objection by not unqualifiedly objecting to the untimely report before reviewing its contents. The Board found that allowing such an objection after seeing an unfavorable opinion would promote doctor shopping and hinder expeditious litigation.

Petition for ReconsiderationStipulation of CounselIndustrial InjuryPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorMedical ReportReplacement PanelWaiverInvited ErrorUntimely ServiceDoctor Shopping
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeFoe Corp. v. New York City Department of Transportation

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was initiated by DeFoe Corporation and American Bridge Company, a joint venture, against the New York City Comptroller and Mayor. The core issue was to challenge the denial of a contract registration for repairs to the Madison Avenue Bridge. Petitioners questioned the timeliness of the Comptroller's objection and whether the denial of registration was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, and finally the Court of Appeals, affirmed the decisions of the Comptroller and Mayor. The courts found that the Comptroller's objection was timely and rationally based on the contractor's past corrupt activities, including tax evasion by principals, failure to disclose violations, and admitted illegal extortion payments.

Contract RegistrationMunicipal Agency ContractCPLR Article 78Arbitrary and CapriciousTimeliness of ObjectionContractor ResponsibilityBusiness IntegrityTax EvasionDisclosure ViolationsExtortion Payments
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2012

Maldonado v. AMMM Properties Co.

The plaintiff, injured during demolition work when a glass pane fell, appealed the denial of his motion for summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation. The defendants cross-appealed the denial of their cross-motion to dismiss claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The appellate court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion, finding that the falling glass pane did not require securing under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court reversed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion and granted it, dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims, concluding that the object did not require securing and the relied-upon industrial code provisions were inapplicable to the demolition work itself.

Personal InjuryLabor LawDemolition AccidentFalling ObjectSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyStatutory InterpretationIndustrial CodeWorkplace Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2002

Claim of Speer v. Wackenhut Corp.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for mental depression, alleging it resulted from being removed from a security guard position by their employer. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled the injury non-compensable under Workers' Compensation Law § 2 (7), deeming it a direct consequence of lawful personnel decisions. The claimant subsequently filed applications for full Board review and reconsideration, both of which were denied by the Board. This appeal concerns the denials of those applications. The court dismissed the appeal from the May 1, 2002 denial as untimely and affirmed the December 11, 2002 denial, finding that the Board did not abuse its discretion by not requiring transcription of oral arguments before rendering its decision.

Workers' CompensationMental DepressionStress-related InjuryPersonnel DecisionsReconsideration DenialFull Board ReviewAppellate ProcedureTimeliness of AppealOral Argument TranscriptionAdministrative Discretion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bush v. Mechanicville Warehouse Corp.

This case involves an appeal from the denial of a third-party defendant's (Yankee One Dollar Stores, Inc.) motions for summary judgment against a defendant (Mechanicville Warehouse Corp.). The plaintiff, Bush, was injured at work and sued Mechanicville, who then brought a third-party action against Yankee for indemnification. Yankee argued that plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and that there was no written contractual indemnification agreement. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the 'grave injury' claim, finding sufficient evidence of permanent total disability due to a traumatic brain injury. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment for contractual indemnification, ruling that Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 requires an *express written contract* of indemnification from the employer, which was not present between Yankee and Mechanicville.

Summary JudgmentThird-Party ActionWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryContractual IndemnificationBrain InjuryPermanent Total DisabilityHoldover TenantExpress AgreementAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. Claim No. 300000720; ECF Doc. # 7818
Regular Panel Decision

In re MF Global Inc.

This case involves an objection by the SIPA Trustee of MF Global Inc. (MFGI) to a putative class claim filed by former employees for damages under the WARN Act and for unpaid accrued vacation time. The Court previously dismissed the WARN Act claims in related adversary proceedings (Thielmann I and II). The class claimants conceded their WARN Act claims were barred, leading the Court to sustain the Trustee's objection to those claims. However, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection to the claim for unpaid accrued vacation time, finding that the putative class claim satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court emphasized that allowing the vacation pay claim to proceed as a class action would result in the most expeditious administration of the MFGI estate, especially since the Trustee had conceded liability for vacation pay. The MFGI Class Claimants were directed to file a motion for class certification as soon as practicable.

BankruptcyClass ActionWARN ActVacation Pay ClaimsClass CertificationRule 23Claims ObjectionSIPA LiquidationEmployee BenefitsBar Date
References
27
Case No. ADJ3395089 (STK 0177203) ADJ2229380 (STK 0196966)
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

ROBERT MILLER vs. CAROL-CARTER DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board initially proposed sanctions against attorney Michael Linn, Esq., mistakenly listing the service date for his objection period. Despite Mr. Linn filing objections on March 4th and April 6th/9th, which were not technically untimely based on the actual service dates, the Board granted him further opportunities to respond. Ultimately, the Board extended the deadline to May 20, 2009, for Mr. Linn to file any additional objections to the proposed $\$ 500.00$ monetary sanction, citing potential service discrepancies and aiming to avoid any appearance of prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardmonetary sanctionsnotice of intentiondue processservice date discrepancyobjection to sanctionsadditional timeCalifornia Code of Regulationsfurlough directivesstate holidays
References
2
Case No. ADJ576200
Regular
Dec 01, 2011

ROBIN DVORKIN vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO WORK COMP

This case involves a dispute over the timeliness of an applicant's objection to a utilization review (UR) denial of prescribed medications for an industrial injury. The defendant, County of Sacramento, argued the applicant failed to object within the statutory twenty-day period. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the judge's finding that the applicant's objection was timely. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning and denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration.

Utilization ReviewNon-certificationTreating PhysicianIndustrial InjuryAgreed Medical ExaminerLabor Code section 4062Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ Report and RecommendationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermissibly Self-Insured
References
0
Case No. ADJ10175880
Regular
Jan 09, 2017

CHRISTINE FLORES vs. EPIC MANAGEMENT, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant's petition for removal to review an order that denied her petition for automatic reassignment of a judge. The original denial was based on the applicant's failure to make an oral objection to the assigned judge as required by rule. However, the Board found insufficient record evidence, including the absence of a hearing and required documentation, to determine if the denial was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Board rescinded the denial order and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalAutomatic ReassignmentWCJWCAB Rule 10453Order Denying PetitionMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceLabor Code Section 5803Labor Code Section 5313Substantial Evidence
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 4,785 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