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

Galvin v. National Biscuit Co.

This is an appeal from an order denying the defendant's motion to vacate a notice of examination before trial. The court unanimously affirmed the order, with twenty dollars in costs and disbursements. The decision explicitly states "No opinion" on the merits of the case. The date for the examination to proceed is to be determined and fixed in a subsequent order. This order will be settled on notice.

Examination Before TrialMotion to VacateOrder AffirmedCosts and DisbursementsPre-trial Discovery
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nicholas v. Consolidated Edison Co.

In a wrongful death action, plaintiff Eugenie Nicholas and third-party defendant Erie Conduit Corporation appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 1, 1982, which denied their motion to vacate a prior judgment dated September 16, 1981. The appellate court found that the trial court's original judgment improperly structured the parties' rights and liabilities concerning a $365,000 settlement, diverging from the jury's verdict and the court's indemnification ruling. Specifically, it prejudiced the plaintiff's right to full recovery from main defendants and incorrectly authorized recovery against the decedent's employer. Treating the motion as one to vacate, the appellate court reversed the order, granted the motion, and vacated the final paragraph of the 1981 judgment, substituting provisions that properly reflect the parties' liabilities and indemnification obligations based on the jury verdict and the court's earlier ruling.

Wrongful DeathIndemnificationContributionJudgment VacatedJury VerdictApportionment of LiabilityThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureDamages
References
16
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 However, the Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and denied the applicant's request for a neurology consultation under Labor Code §4601(a).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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Casas v. Consolidated Edison Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on October 3, 2011, which declared the defendant's answer stricken due to non-compliance with a conditional preclusion order from October 31, 2006, and limited the trial to the issue of damages. This order was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for not complying with discovery requests and did not present a meritorious defense, which was necessary to vacate the preclusion order. The court also clarified that a Workers' Compensation Board panel decision dated August 28, 2009, regarding the plaintiff's accident-related disability, does not have preclusive effect. Additionally, a prior decision and order of this Court, entered on April 9, 2013, was recalled and vacated.

Discovery SanctionsStriking AnswerConditional Preclusion OrderSelf-Executing OrderMeritorious DefenseReasonable ExcuseWorkers' Compensation BoardPreclusive EffectAppellate ReviewRecall and Vacate Order
References
7
Case No. ADJ2663934 (LAO 0777281)
Regular
Nov 24, 2008

LATOSHA HARRIS vs. AMI STAFFING, CALIFORNIA GUARANTEE INSURANCE ASSOCIATION For SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., in liquidation, LIQUID CONTAINER, INC., CENTENNIAL INSURANCE/ATLANTIC MUTUAL

The Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the employer's petition because the underlying WCJ's order was not a final, appealable decision. The Board then granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the case to the trial level. This action was taken because the WCJ improperly referred issues not subject to mandatory arbitration under Labor Code § 5275(a) to arbitration.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCIGACentennial InsuranceAMI StaffingLiquid ContainerInc.Superior National InsurancePetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code § 5275(a)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pardo v. Bialystoker Center & Bikur Cholim, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order, dated September 12, 2002, and the second, dated February 27, 2003, had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and precluded him from asserting Labor Law claims at trial concerning the alleged failure of defendants to secure a scaffold with "tie-ins." The appellate court modified the lower court's orders, vacating the provisions that barred the plaintiff from offering evidence regarding the defendants' alleged failure to use tie-ins. The court affirmed the orders in all other respects. It emphasized that under Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that injuries were partially attributable to the defendant's failure to implement statutorily mandated safety measures to protect against elevation-related risks. The court also clarified that contributory negligence is irrelevant in such cases. The plaintiff's belated request to plead a violation of Industrial Code § 23-5.8 (g) was denied due to an unequivocal waiver of his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentElevation HazardsProximate CauseContributory NegligenceTie-insWorkplace AccidentStatutory Safety MeasuresAppellate Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 100, Transport Workers Union v. New York City Transit Authority

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had granted a petition to vacate an arbitration award. The dispute arose from a collective bargaining agreement between the parties concerning expedited arbitration of safety issues related to "One Person Train Operation" (OPTO). When the petitioner refused to agree to hearing dates without discovery, the respondent filed a grievance, leading to a ruling by an Impartial Arbitrator directing adherence to scheduled dates. The Supreme Court initially vacated this arbitration award, but the appellate court reversed, holding that courts lack jurisdiction to review interlocutory arbitration decisions and can only intervene after a final determination in the arbitration proceeding.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceExpedited ArbitrationOne Person Train OperationJurisdictionInterlocutory DecisionAppellate ReviewCPLRVacatur of Award
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crawford v. Ehrlich

The court reversed an order denying a motion to vacate a notice of examination before trial, subsequently granting the motion. The examination sought information regarding $2,700 in U.S. Bonds and a $1,000 insurance policy, both payable or assigned to the executrix individually. The court found that the objectant had no legal interest in these assets as they were payable to a stated beneficiary and individually assigned to the executrix. Furthermore, the objectant was not a creditor, precluding examination under the Debtor and Creditor Law. Therefore, it was deemed an improvident exercise of discretion to permit the examination given the objectant's lack of a possible legal interest.

Motion to vacateNotice of examination before trialU.S. Bonds Series EInsurance policyDecedent's estateExecutrixObjectantDebtor and Creditor LawLegal interestDiscretionary power
References
1
Case No. ADJ6762403
Regular
Jan 07, 2013

THEODORE PERLL vs. CARDINALE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, ULICO CASUALTY COMPANY

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, upholding the WCJ's order to continue the case to trial. The applicant sought to rescind the trial date, arguing that an MRI of his knee, ordered by his treating physician, might reveal the need for further surgery and that proceeding to trial would prevent him from presenting current medical information. The Board found that by the trial date, the applicant would have the MRI results and any resulting surgical recommendations, allowing the trial judge to assess whether to proceed. The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, making reconsideration an adequate remedy.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferenceTemporary Disability BenefitsPermanent and StationaryFurther SurgeryIndustrial InjuryWCJ
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 26,301 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