Updated Daily
Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.
The Motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied. The stay is continued until the appellant has an opportunity to apply to the Court of Appeals for permission to appeal, if so advised.
This case involves a special proceeding under Workers’ Compensation Law §29 (5) where the plaintiffs-petitioners sought permission to compromise a personal injury action. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, initially granted their motion for leave to renew and reargue their application, subsequently granting the application to compromise the action. The Utilities Mutual Insurance Company and the Special Funds Conservation Committee appealed this decision, arguing the $22,500 settlement was inadequate and the permission to settle was an abuse of discretion. The Appellate Division affirmed the resettled order, finding that the liability and damage questions in the underlying action, which involved a dog attack aggravating previous injuries and precipitating surgery, were problematical, thus concluding that the settlement grant was not an abuse of discretion.
This document is a petition for permission to appeal an order from the 131st District Court of Bexar County, Texas. Appellant Ravi Botla, M.D., seeks to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion for summary judgment, which was based on the statute of limitations. The trial court denied Dr. Botla's motion but granted him permission for an interlocutory appeal under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 51.014(d) and (f). The petition outlines controlling questions of law regarding the sufficiency of a medical authorization to toll the statute of limitations and whether procedural rules can extend the absolute limitations period in a health care liability claim when the deadline falls on a weekend.
Allen Scott Smith sued his former employer, Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., for retaliatory discharge after filing a worker's compensation claim and for failure to report the injury. Smith was discharged for allegedly leaving plant premises and falsifying a time card, though co-workers disputed his absence. He was later reinstated through a union grievance but denied back pay, which he accepted as a settlement. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on all issues, including the retaliatory discharge and the accord and satisfaction. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment on the retaliatory discharge claim, finding that Smith presented enough evidence for a jury to find pretext under the "permissive pretext" standard. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment on the accord and satisfaction claim, ruling that Smith's voluntary settlement of the grievance precluded further action for the same relief.
Claimant Nazareno Nicometti was injured in a truck accident at a State-owned construction site, allegedly due to an unsecured jack, causing a fractured eye socket. The claimants sought permission to serve a late notice of claim against the State, alleging violations of Labor Law §§200 and 241. The Court of Claims granted this motion, but the Appellate Division reversed the order, finding the 33-month delay unexcused and prejudicial to the State, which lost the opportunity to investigate and inspect the truck. The court also noted the dubious merit of the claim and the availability of workers' compensation benefits.
The Court of Claims initially granted the claimants' application for permission to file a late notice of claim without providing reasons. This decision was subsequently reversed by the appellate court. The reversal was predicated on the statutory factors outlined in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6), which include a six-month unexplained delay in filing and a lack of evidence that the State or Thruway Authority had prior notice of the claim's essential facts or an opportunity to investigate. The appellate court further noted that the State would suffer prejudice due to the changing nature of the construction site where the injury occurred. Additionally, the claimant's allegations regarding a violation of the New York State Labor Law were deemed bare, and a partial alternate remedy was available through workers’ compensation.
Claimant Gordon Donaldson was allegedly injured in October 1987 while working at Southport Correctional Facility when lumber and plastic sheeting blew off a roof. He subsequently applied to the Court of Claims for permission to file a late claim against the State of New York, alleging negligence under the Labor Law. The Court of Claims granted this application, a decision which the State appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's ruling, emphasizing that the Court of Claims possesses broad discretion in such matters. The appellate court concluded that the State failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice due to the delay, citing indications of prior notice through a State inspector's report and a statement provided to Dick International's insurance carrier, CNA Insurance Company.
Philip J. Shore, beneficiary of an inter vivos trust, through his guardian ad litem, sought the removal of trustee Georgina Vassiliou, Esq., for her failure to account as directed by a prior court order. Vassiliou, who drafted the trust instrument naming herself as grantor and trustee, argued that the trust terms exempted her from accounting during the beneficiary's lifetime. The court found that such a provision, attempting to render a fiduciary unaccountable, is void as against public policy, as expressed in EPTL 11-1.7, and applies equally to inter vivos trusts where beneficiaries cannot protect their interests. The court also denied Vassiliou's motion to dismiss the guardian's petition and her requests for reargument or renewal, finding them procedurally defective and lacking merit. Ultimately, the court granted the application for Vassiliou's removal as trustee and for permission to take and state her account, while denying all of Vassiliou's motions.
This case involves a dispute over the need for carpal tunnel release surgery. The applicant's physician recommended surgery, but the employer denied authorization and sought a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) without initiating utilization review as required by Labor Code section 4610. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal, rescinded the order to take the case off calendar, and remanded it for an expedited hearing. The WCAB found the applicant was entitled to a hearing on whether a QME was permissible without prior utilization review and on the entitlement to the recommended surgery.
The claimant-appellant filed a motion seeking permission to prosecute an appeal as a poor person and requesting assignment of counsel. The court partially granted the motion, allowing the appeal to proceed based on the board’s original file and seven copies of a brief and appendix from the reconsideration application. All other aspects of the motion were denied. The court specified that its review on appeal would be limited to assessing whether the board’s denial of reconsideration was arbitrary or capricious. Justices Mahoney, Sweeney, Main, Mikoll, and Herlihy concurred in this decision.
Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.