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

United States v. Morrison

Defendant Rodney Morrison was convicted of RICO conspiracy involving the sale and distribution of contraband cigarettes and illegal firearm possession. The State and City of New York sought restitution as victims of the RICO conspiracy. The Court found the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) applicable. It determined that the State of New York is a direct victim, but the City of New York is not, as its claimed harm was not directly and proximately caused by the specific conduct Morrison was convicted of (lacking New York State tax stamps). Consequently, the State's restitution application is granted in part, limited to tax losses from actual CCTA violations between October 1996 and September 2004, while the City's application is denied. The State must submit further documentation consistent with these limitations.

RestitutionRICO ConspiracyContraband CigarettesTax EvasionMVRAVWPAState Tax LossCriminal SentencingFederal Court DecisionProximate Causation
References
17
Case No. ADJ8181938; ADJ8702275
Regular
Apr 10, 2023

KAREN MILLER vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, VENTURA YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued against the statutory 15% increase, the method of evaluating spine impairment, and the inclusion of a sleep disorder. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding no error in the application of the 15% increase or the evaluation of the spine impairment using the ROM method as deemed appropriate by the agreed medical examiner. Furthermore, the Board upheld the finding of an industrially caused sleep disorder, noting that formal sleep studies are not always required for diagnosis and that the physician's rating falls within the AMA Guides.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedVentura Youth Correctional FacilityAdjudication NumbersOccupational Group 214Cervical SpineLumbar SpineBilateral ShouldersGastrointestinal System
References
1
Case No. ADJ1143803 (OXN 0128653) ADJ2709854 (OXN 0142376)
Regular
Nov 01, 2011

SALVADOR PAZ vs. MARTINEZ PAINTING & WALL COVERING, MB PAINTING, CIGA, for CREDIT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERCARE, CIGA for UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERCARE, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, ACE USA

This case involves a painter, Salvador Paz, who sustained cumulative and specific injuries to his back, shoulder, wrist, neck, and foot. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied petitions for reconsideration from State Farm, CIGA, and the applicant. The Board upheld the original findings, which apportioned permanent disability at 72% to the specific injury (CIGA via Credit General) and 28% to the cumulative trauma (ACE USA and State Farm). Liability for temporary disability was also divided, and State Farm's arguments regarding an unequal division and due process were rejected.

CIGAState Farmcumulative injuryspecific injuryapportionmenttemporary disabilitypermanent disabilityvocational expertPetition for ReconsiderationCredit General Insurance
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Witko v. State of New York

Claimants Richard and Sally Witko appealed the denial of their application to file a late notice of claim against the State of New York and the denial of their motion for reconsideration. Richard Witko was injured in a bicycle accident involving dogs, one of which belonged to a State Police Trooper. The Court of Claims initially denied the application due to weak factual allegations, lack of excuse for delay, insufficient notice to the State, and the availability of an alternative remedy. The motion for reconsideration, which included new deposition details, was also denied as it did not bolster the claim's merit. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion given the lack of excuse, insufficient notice, the alternative remedy, and the claim's lack of apparent merit, especially after evidence suggested the State's dog was not involved in the actual collision.

Late Notice of ClaimCourt of Claims ActPersonal InjuryBicycle AccidentDog AttackState PoliceSovereign ImmunityNotice to StateAppearance of MeritMotion for Reconsideration
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. State of New York

The United States sued the State of New York and several state entities, including SBOE, SUNY, and CUNY, alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The core issue was whether state-funded Disabled Student Services (DSS) offices at public colleges and universities, including SUNY and CUNY campuses and community colleges, must be designated as mandatory voter registration agencies (VRAs) under 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5(a)(2)(B). The State defendants argued these offices were not 'primarily engaged' in serving persons with disabilities, and that the NVRA did not apply to them. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the interpretation of the NVRA, citing legislative intent and prior circuit court decisions. The Court concluded that DSS offices at all SUNY and CUNY campuses and their respective community colleges are indeed state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities, and therefore must be designated as mandatory VRAs. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted.

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)Voter Registration Agencies (VRAs)Disabled Student Services (DSS)State-funded programsPublic universitiesCommunity collegesFederalismSummary judgmentDeclaratory reliefInjunctive relief
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1985

United States v. $100 in United States Currency

The United States initiated an in rem forfeiture action against $100,000 in U.S. currency, alleging it originated from illegal drug transactions. Claimants Jose Martinez-Torres and Nancy Medina asserted the funds were legitimate lottery winnings. The government sought summary judgment, arguing issue preclusion from a prior Nebbia bail hearing where Medina's lottery claim was found incredible. The Court granted partial summary judgment for the government, establishing probable cause for forfeiture. However, it denied the application of offensive collateral estoppel for full summary judgment, citing the distinct procedural environment and limited scope of the Nebbia hearing, and ruled that claimants are entitled to a plenary trial to prove the legitimate source of the funds.

ForfeitureDrug Trafficking ProceedsCollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionSummary JudgmentProbable CauseIn Rem ForfeitureBail HearingDue Process ConcernsPuerto Rican Lottery
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Police v. Charles Q.

A State Trooper, acquitted of criminal charges, had his criminal records sealed. His employer, the State Police (petitioner), subsequently sought to unseal these records for use in a disciplinary proceeding. The County Court initially granted the application to unseal. On appeal, the court reversed the County Court's order, ruling that the State Police, when conducting a disciplinary proceeding against one of its employees, is not acting as a 'law enforcement agency' under CPL 160.50 (1) (d) (ii) and thus has no statutory right to access sealed records. Furthermore, the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the 'compelling demonstration' required for exercising the court's inherent power to unseal records, as it did not demonstrate that other investigative avenues had been exhausted or were unavailable. Consequently, the application to unseal the records was denied.

Sealed recordsCriminal Procedure Law 160.50Disciplinary proceedingState TrooperPublic employerLaw enforcement agencyInherent court powerUnsealing recordsAppellate reviewAdministrative determination
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06231 [243 AD3d 1034]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2025

Matter of County of Rockland v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

The County of Rockland appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed its application to annul a determination by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The dispute centered on DEC's issuance of a renewed State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit for the Orangeburg Wastewater Treatment Plant, specifically concerning the County's request to incorporate a proposed diffuser project. The County argued that DEC improperly failed to rescind a notice of complete application to allow for a new review process, including consideration of its proposed diffuser, and by requiring a permittee-initiated modification request. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that DEC acted rationally in declining to further delay the permit issuance given the lengthy process and the speculative nature of the diffuser project. The court also determined that the County's additional arguments regarding the "reopening" of the application and the application of equitable estoppel were unpreserved for review or lacked merit.

Environmental LawSPDES PermitWastewater TreatmentJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Administrative LawAppellate ReviewEffluent LimitsDiffuser ProjectSEQRA
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Housing Authority Tenant Selection Division v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) initiated a proceeding to review an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which had affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that NYCHA discriminated against Constance Orlando, a mentally disabled public housing applicant. The court found insufficient evidence to support the discrimination claim. While acknowledging that denying housing solely based on mental disability is unlawful, the court determined that NYCHA denied Orlando's application due to a valid reason: her persistent disruptive, harassing, and threatening behavior, which made her an undesirable tenant according to housing regulations. Consequently, the court granted NYCHA's petition, annulled the Appeal Board's order, denied the cross-application for enforcement, and dismissed the complaint.

DiscriminationMental DisabilityPublic HousingTenant EligibilityUndesirable TenantExecutive LawJudicial ReviewAdministrative OrderDisruptive BehaviorHarassment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Young

The case involves an application by the Secretary of State to cancel and revoke the certification of candidates via telegram. The court affirmed the order without costs and granted the Secretary of State's application. No opinion was provided for the decision, with several judges concurring.

Secretary of Statecertification revocationcandidate certificationtelegramorder affirmedapplication grantedadministrative law
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 18,934 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