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

Claim of Karam v. Executive Charge/Love Taxi

Claimant initiated a workers' compensation case, leading to a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge finding an employer-employee relationship with Executive Charge/Love Taxi. This finding was affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which rejected the independent contractor argument. Executive Charge/Love Taxi appealed this interlocutory decision. The appellate court, citing precedent from *Matter of Dubnoff v Feathers Sportswear*, determined that the Board's ruling on employment status was not a final or 'threshold legal issue' warranting immediate review. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the policy against piecemeal review of substantive issues in compensation cases.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorInterlocutory AppealAppellate ReviewJurisdictionPiecemeal ReviewBoard DecisionDismissed AppealWorkers' Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stair v. Calhoun

Plaintiffs' counsel, Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., moved to withdraw from representing plaintiffs and sought a charging and retaining lien due to plaintiff Theodore Stair's substantial unpaid legal fees. Stair opposed the withdrawal, citing a pending settlement. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw, finding Stair's prolonged failure to pay constituted deliberate disregard of his financial obligations. The court also granted a charging lien for $37,546.87, representing adjusted reasonable hours and expenses, but denied the motion for a retaining lien to prevent prejudice to the ongoing litigation and due to Stair's alleged indigence.

Withdrawal of CounselCharging LienRetaining LienUnpaid Legal FeesAttorney-Client RelationshipDeliberate DisregardQuantum MeruitShareholder DilutionMotion PracticeFee Dispute
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. Cuevas

Petitioner filed an improper practice charge against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging that Level I supervisors were performing work previously exclusive to Level II supervisors, specifically zone supervision, booth audits, and investigations. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found a violation for zone supervision but not for the other tasks. PERB subsequently reversed the ALJ's decision regarding zone supervision, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish exclusivity. The petitioner then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination. The court, reviewing PERB's decision for substantial evidence, found that the petitioner did not meet its burden of demonstrating exclusivity for any of the disputed tasks due to significant overlap in supervisor duties. Consequently, PERB's determination dismissing the improper practice charge was confirmed.

improper practicepublic sector laborsupervisory rolesjob dutiesexclusivityCPLR article 78PERBNYCTACivil Service Lawzone supervision
References
7
Case No. ADJ3655566 (STK 0134190)
Regular
Aug 06, 2018

ANDREW DASHIELL vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AUTHORITY, STATE COMPENSATON INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a lien claimant, Med-Legal, seeking payment for photocopy services. The trial judge denied the lien, finding the charges unreasonable and improperly applying a fee schedule that took effect after the services were rendered. The Appeals Board agreed that the fee schedule was incorrectly applied to pre-2015 services. However, it remanded the case to the trial level for an evidentiary hearing to determine the *reasonableness* of the lien claimant's charges.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantMed-Legal Photocopy ServiceCopy Service Fee ScheduleReasonable and Necessary ExpensesMedical-Legal ExpensesBurden of ProofLabor Code Section 4622Labor Code Section 4620Labor Code Section 5307.9
References
4
Case No. ADJ8752588
Regular
Dec 20, 2017

HUMBERTO LOPEZ vs. LANCASTER BURNS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ZURICH INSURANCE GROUP LTD./ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claim by Med Legal Photocopy for services rendered in connection with applicant Humberto Lopez's workers' compensation claim. The initial judge denied the lien, finding the photocopy charges unreasonable. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the defendant waived objections to reasonableness by failing to provide a timely explanation of review. Consequently, the lien was allowed in full, with a 10% increase due to delayed payment, plus interest and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Med Legal PhotocopyLancaster Burns ConstructionZurich Insurance GroupPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderstatute of limitationsburden of proofreasonable chargeslien denialwaiver of objection
References
5
Case No. ADJ8595492
Regular
Mar 14, 2018

CLIMMIE JONES vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CMS

Lien claimant California Imaging Solutions (CIS) sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision disallowing their $\$7,232.68$ lien for photocopy charges. The WCJ initially found these charges were not reasonably required to prove a contested case. Subsequently, CIS and the defendant, Los Angeles Unified School District, stipulated to settle the lien for $\$3,000.00$. The Appeals Board approved this stipulation, amending the original Findings and Order to reflect the agreed-upon settlement amount.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderDisallowed lienPhotocopy chargesContested caseStipulationSettlementGood faith negotiations
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holland Laundry, Inc. v. Simon

This case concerns an action brought by the plaintiffs to enjoin the defendants from pursuing certain charges before the State Labor Board. The court considered the respondent's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The order granting this motion was affirmed. No opinion was provided for this decision, with Presiding Justice Lazansky, along with Justices Carswell, Johnston, Taylor, and Close, concurring.

InjunctionLabor LawMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintAffirmedCourt OrderConcurring Justices
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banner Employment Agency, Inc. v. O'Connell

This case concerns the annulment of a respondent's determination that a petitioner employment agency violated Section 185 of the General Business Law by charging an excessive fee. The dispute centered on the classification of an employee for fee calculation, with the respondent advocating for 'Class A1' and the petitioner for 'Class B'. The employee possessed an engineering background and technical experience. The court concluded that the employment did not fit into 'Class A1' or the professional aspect of 'Class B', instead falling under 'Class B's' residual 'other employment' category. Consequently, the respondent's initial determination was annulled.

Employment Agency FeesGeneral Business LawEmployment ClassificationStatutory InterpretationExcessive ChargeJudicial ReviewAnnulmentSkilled WorkerNon-Professional EmploymentClass B Employment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 1998

Devlin v. City of New York

This personal injury action was brought by plaintiffs, including Claire Devlin, against Charge A Ride and Car Company, Inc., and individual drivers, following an accident involving two Charge A Ride cars. Charge A Ride sought summary judgment, arguing its drivers were independent contractors and it lacked vicarious liability. The Supreme Court denied this motion, and the appellate court affirmed the denial. The court found that a question of fact existed regarding the nature of the relationship, citing factors indicative of Charge A Ride's control over its drivers. A dissenting opinion argued insufficient control for an employer-employee relationship, but the majority emphasized that the issue, including whether Charge A Ride presented itself as the employer, should be resolved by a jury.

Vicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryCar Dispatch CompanyControl TestAppellate ReviewDissenting OpinionWorkers' Compensation
References
13
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01123
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2023

Matter of Kohn v. County of Sullivan

Burt Kohn, an administrator for the Sullivan County Adult Care Center, was terminated following a disciplinary hearing based on charges of misconduct and incompetence. The charges stemmed from allegations that he suggested a subordinate share login credentials for a CDC database and asked staff to volunteer to test positive for COVID-19. The Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the determination by annulling two charges related to 'directing' password sharing, finding only a 'suggestion' was made. However, it sustained charges of misconduct and incompetence for the suggestion itself, noting potential penalties for non-compliance with rules, and upheld charges regarding his inappropriate COVID-19 remarks. The court ultimately affirmed the termination penalty, deeming it proportionate given his role during the pandemic.

Civil Service LawMisconduct ChargesIncompetence ChargesEmployment TerminationDisciplinary ProceedingsSubstantial Evidence ReviewDue ProcessPassword Sharing ProhibitionCOVID-19 ReportingNursing Home Administration
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 985 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