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

Goldwater v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Elaine Goldwater, an administrative assistant for Metro-North Commuter Railroad, filed suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) and state negligence law after being assaulted at a Metro-North station while traveling to an off-site meeting. Metro-North moved for summary judgment, arguing the "commuter rule" barred the FELA claim and that it owed no duty to protect Goldwater from third-party criminal acts under state law. The court granted summary judgment, determining Goldwater's commute did not fall under any FELA "commuter rule" exceptions as she was not compensated for travel, on-call, or compelled to use Metro-North's trains. Additionally, the court found Metro-North, as a quasi-governmental entity, did not have a special relationship with Goldwater, thus owing her no special duty of protection beyond that owed to the general commuting public for the alleged negligence in station design and maintenance.

Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)Commuter Rule ExceptionSummary Judgment MotionThird-Party AssaultRailroad NegligenceGovernmental Entity DutySpecial Relationship DoctrineScope of EmploymentPremises LiabilityEmployee Injury
References
24
Case No. Docket No. 12
Regular Panel Decision

PITTER v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

This decision and order addresses defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad's motion in limine regarding the upcoming trial in a FELA negligence claim brought by plaintiff Perry Pitter for an eye injury. Metro-North sought to preclude various testimonies and documentary evidence, particularly concerning Pitter's employment termination, arguing irrelevance and wrongful termination claims. The court largely denied Metro-North's requests, affirming that testimony and evidence relating to Pitter's lost employment and wages could be relevant to consequential damages under FELA's relaxed causation standard. However, the court granted the exclusion of Pitter’s Notice to Admit. The decision underscores the broad scope of FELA damages for consequential injuries arising from employer negligence.

FELA ClaimMotion in LimineNegligenceEye InjuryLost WagesConsequential DamagesRailway Labor ActFRE 402CausationEconomic Harms
References
11
Case No. ADJ10871045 ADJ10871047 ADJ10871049
Regular
Feb 19, 2019

XAVIER HERNDON vs. BENIHANA, INC.; ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's order commuting all future payments to a lump sum. The Board found the commutation order violated defendant's due process rights by failing to provide notice and an opportunity to object or present evidence. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including notice and a potential hearing on the commutation request.

Order of CommutationPetition for ReconsiderationDue ProcessNoticeOpportunity to be HeardWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLump SumStipulationsAward
References
6
Case No. ADJ1 0172085
Regular
Apr 28, 2016

MOHAMMAD SARHADDI vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding an order that commuted all future permanent disability payments to a lump sum. The defendant argued this order was issued without proper service, denying them due process. The WCAB agreed with the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) recommendation to grant reconsideration. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the original commutation order and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder of Commutation of Future PaymentsDue ProcessPetition for CommutationReport and RecommendationRescindedTrial LevelFurther ProceedingsWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ3898876 (LAO 0741434)
Regular
Oct 11, 2018

LISA GARCIA vs. MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES dba BLOOMINGDALES, INC.

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation judge's order granting the applicant a $115,000 commutation of permanent disability benefits. The defendant argued the commutation was not in the applicant's best interest and lacked substantial evidence. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original order, and returned the matter to the judge. The Board found the original record lacked sufficient evidence to support the commutation for a home purchase, debt payoff, and vehicle repair, citing insufficient proof of costs and the applicant's ability to live on reduced future benefits.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCommutation of Permanent Disability IndemnityBest Interest of ApplicantSubstantial EvidenceLabor Code Section 5100Stipulated AwardInjury to Back and PsycheSales ClerkCredit Card Debt
References
0
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
Sep 01, 2011

Errol S. v. Shelidah D.

The case involves an appeal concerning a Family Court order from New York County, dated September 1, 2011, which granted the father's petition to modify a joint custody arrangement and awarded him sole custody of his two children, with visitation rights to the respondent mother. The prior order had established joint custody with primary physical custody to the mother. The father sought modification due to concerns about the mother's inability to meet the children's basic hygiene and medical needs, as well as safety issues during their school commute. The Referee's decision to grant sole custody to the father was unanimously affirmed on appeal, citing a sound basis for credibility determinations against the mother, whose testimony was contradicted by multiple parties including the children's dentist. The court found that the father provided a stable home and addressed the children's needs, while the mother consistently failed to do so. The attorneys for the children also supported the affirmation, noting the children's satisfaction and well-being in the father's care.

Family LawChild CustodyJoint Custody ModificationSole Custody AwardParental FitnessChildren's WelfareMedical NeglectHygiene ConcernsCredibility DeterminationsAppellate Affirmation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to defendant Weintraub & diDomenico, dismissed the complaint against it, and denied plaintiff leave to amend his bill of particulars to assert specific Industrial Code violations. It also granted the cross-motion of defendants Metro-North Commuter Railroad and Crow Construction Company for summary judgment to dismiss plaintiff's Labor Law § 241 (6) claims. This appellate court modified these orders, granting plaintiff leave to amend his bill of particulars to assert specific Industrial Code violations in support of his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim and denying the cross-motion of Metro-North and Crow for summary judgment, thereby reinstating those claims. The court found that plaintiff's 'Second Cross Motion' should have been considered due to the absence of prejudice. However, the dismissal of claims against Weintraub & diDomenico was affirmed as there was no evidence of affirmative negligence, a clear contractual provision benefiting workers, or control and supervision by the architect that would impose liability under Labor Law §§ 241 (6) or 200.

Summary JudgmentBill of Particulars AmendmentIndustrial Code ViolationsLabor Law ClaimsAppellate ReviewConstruction Site SafetyArchitect LiabilityAffirmative NegligenceContractual ObligationControl and Supervision
References
15
Case No. ADJ8138866
Regular
Mar 12, 2019

FRANK MARTINEZ vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION - CORCORAN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted SCIF's Petition for Reconsideration of an order commuting $268,000.00, finding the WCJ's decision was not based on an adequate record. Crucial financial documentation supporting the applicant's commutation request was missing, and no hearing occurred to allow parties to present evidence. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings to establish a complete record and allow evidence.

Order of CommutationPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations with Request for AwardLabor Code section 5100.2Petition for CommutationSCIFWCJReport and RecommendationMinutes of HearingPermanent disability
References
13
Case No. ADJ9214768
Regular
Nov 15, 2016

SEBASTIAN O'NEILL vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior order that commuted $10,000.00 from an award. The Board ordered a commutation of $5,562.00 from the permanent disability award. The remaining $4,437.65 requested for a collections bill was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine if it related to the applicant's industrial injury. The Board noted the employer's responsibility for industrially related medical treatment and their better position to investigate such bills.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCommutationPermanent Disability AwardFinancial StraitsCollection AgencyCMRE Financial ServicesRent ArrearagesCell Phone Bill
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 24,125 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