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. MON 0311734
Regular
Feb 19, 2008

DANIEL MUNGUIA vs. PREFERRED PERSONNEL, NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that denied his claim for a back injury, finding his testimony regarding the cause of injury lacked credibility. The Board affirmed the decision, emphasizing that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof to establish a compensable injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment. Key to the decision were contradictions in the applicant's statements and the exclusion of a witness's testimony, which the Board found was properly excluded based on prior orders limiting the record.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationCredibilityBurden of ProofMedical RecordsLabor Code Section 3202Substantial EvidenceMedical TreatmentIndustrial InjuryWCJ
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. City Civil Service Commission

The New York City Personnel Director challenged the City Civil Service Commission's decision to grant veterans' preference credits to police officers who performed a few hours of active duty during a 1970 postal strike. The Court of Appeals found that the Personnel Director had standing to sue, rejecting the argument of an intra-agency dispute due to the Director's policy-making and enforcement authority over civil service laws. On the merits, the Court reversed the Commission's decision, holding that veterans' credits are intended for individuals whose full-time military service significantly disrupted their civilian lives, a condition not met by the police officers' brief service. The court clarified that mere literal fulfillment of "time of war" and "member of the armed forces" definitions is insufficient without demonstrable sacrifice. Therefore, the orders awarding the preference credits were annulled, emphasizing the restrictive interpretation of such preferences in competitive civil service systems.

Veterans' preference creditsCivil Service LawStanding to sueArticle 78 proceedingMunicipal civil service commissionPersonnel DirectorJudicial review of administrative decisionsArmed Forces reservistsActive dutyConstitutional interpretation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mandel v. United States Office of Personnel Management

Michael Mandel sued the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and two individual defendants, McCann and Crandell, alleging violations of the Privacy Act. The lawsuit stemmed from OPM's disclosure of Mandel's employment records to his former supervisors during an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), where Mandel challenged OPM's negative suitability determination for federal employment due to alleged falsification of records. Mandel moved for summary judgment, arguing OPM's disclosure was unlawful and caused him emotional distress and pecuniary loss, while defendants cross-moved, asserting a 'routine use' exception and lack of causation. The court denied Mandel's motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the disclosure fell within the Privacy Act's 'routine use' exception. Furthermore, the court found Mandel failed to establish a causal connection between the disclosure and his claimed adverse effects, concluding that his own falsification of documents was the cause. Finally, the claims against the individual defendants were dismissed as the Privacy Act does not permit suits against individuals.

Privacy ActSummary JudgmentRoutine Use ExceptionFederal EmploymentSuitability DeterminationMSPB AppealFalsification of DocumentsInformation DisclosureAdverse EffectCausal Connection
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Degale-Selier v. Preferred Management & Leasing Corp.

This legal excerpt examines the concept of dual employment, focusing on general and special employers under Workers’ Compensation Law. It reiterates that immunity extends to all employers when a plaintiff accepts workers’ compensation benefits, regardless of the corporate relationship between entities. The core issue revolves around defining a "special employee" and establishing this status as a matter of law. In the presented case, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants' motion for summary judgment, as they failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff was a special employee of Preferred Management & Leasing Corp. or that Preferred was an alter ego or joint venture with the plaintiff's employer, 21st Avenue Transportation Co., Inc. The decision emphasizes the factual nature of special employment status and the burden of proof on the moving party.

Dual EmploymentSpecial EmployeeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSummary JudgmentAlter EgoJoint VentureEmployer LiabilityCorporate EntitiesAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2008

Mayo v. Personnel Review Board of the Health & Hospitals Corp.

The case involves a petitioner, an HHC supervisor, whose employment was terminated after an altercation. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially recommended dismissal of charges related to assault and unbecoming conduct. However, the Personnel Review Board (PRB) upheld the termination based on an uncharged ground: the petitioner's failure to immediately report the incident. The Supreme Court annulled the PRB's decision, citing a due process violation due to reliance on uncharged misconduct, deemed the termination penalty disproportionate, and directed reinstatement. This appellate court affirmed the finding of a due process violation but modified the Supreme Court's order, remanding the matter to the PRB for further proceedings consistent with the lack of sufficient notice. The court also clarified that the Supreme Court prematurely addressed the application of HHC personnel rule 7.5.6, stating that the PRB should interpret this rule first.

Due Process ViolationUncharged MisconductAdministrative HearingEmployment TerminationReinstatementRemandSufficiency of NoticeAssault ChargesFailure to ReportPersonnel Rules
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2002

Abdelaal v. Gindi

This case involves an appeal by Astra Construction Corp. and Preferred Mutual Insurance Company from an order granting summary judgment to City Construction Co. The underlying action was commenced by a plaintiff, an employee of City Construction Co., to recover damages for personal injuries after falling from a ladder. The plaintiff received Workers' Compensation benefits from City Construction Co.'s insurer. Astra, a contractor, and its insurer, Preferred Mutual, were brought into a third-party action by the property owners, and Astra subsequently cross-claimed against City Construction Co. for contribution and common-law indemnification. City Construction Co. moved for summary judgment, invoking the Workers' Compensation Law's affirmative defense, arguing that it was responsible for compensation benefits and the worker did not sustain a grave injury, nor was there a written indemnification agreement. The court found that City Construction Co. satisfied its burden for summary judgment, and Astra failed to present admissible evidence to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order, which granted summary judgment dismissing Astra's cross claims against City Construction Co., was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentCross ClaimsContributionIndemnificationPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityGrave InjuryAppellate DecisionKings County
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2021

Matter of Gaylord v. Buffalo Transp., Inc.

Claimant Kevin Gaylord, a bus driver for Buffalo Transportation, Inc., sustained multiple injuries after being struck by a car. Buffalo Transportation had a personnel leasing agreement with Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc. (SPLI), a professional employer organization, which procured a workers' compensation policy from State National Insurance Company, Inc. State National controverted Gaylord's claim, arguing he was not a covered worksite employee. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that SPLI was statutorily obligated to provide coverage and State National was the proper carrier. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, concluding that SPLI was a co-employer and the State National policy covered Gaylord, as it did not clearly exclude him.

Workers' CompensationProfessional Employer OrganizationPEOCo-employmentInsurance Coverage DisputeStatutory ObligationAppellate ReviewCarrier LiabilityLease AgreementBus Driver Injury
References
8
Case No. ADJ6823875
Regular
Jan 16, 2015

JUAN GONZALEZ vs. PREFERRED PERSONNEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Bell Community Medical Group's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that the lien claimant's admitted calendaring error for the lien conference, coupled with their failure to object to the properly served Notice of Intention to Dismiss their lien, justified the dismissal. The Board adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report. Therefore, the order dismissing the lien stands.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantNotice of Intent to DismissLien ConferenceCompromise and ReleaseWCABAdministrative Law JudgeGood CauseTimelinessVerification
References
0
Case No. ADJ932256 (LBO 0396558)
Regular
Jul 14, 2010

DANIEL MASCORRO vs. PREFERRED PERSONNEL, AMERICAN INSURANCE GUARANTEE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration. The claimant, a former attorney, sought reconsideration of an order approving a compromise and release that set aside $1,000 for attorney fees. The Board found the claimant lacked standing as no order had yet been made regarding the division of those fees. Any party aggrieved by a future division order can then seek reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAttorney FeesLien ClaimantStandingAggrieved PartyLabor Code Section 5900Workers' Compensation JudgeDivision of Attorney Fee
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frazer v. Additional Personnel, Inc.

Additional Personnel, Inc., an employer, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from December 30, 1982. The Board had affirmed the proper cancellation of the employer's workers' compensation insurance policy by the State Insurance Fund, effective June 1, 1980, due to unpaid premiums. The employer was consequently uninsured when an accident occurred on November 20, 1980. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the State Insurance Fund had properly followed cancellation procedures and that a subsequent payment by the employer did not retroactively restore coverage. The court also dismissed the employer's procedural objections regarding the record.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CancellationPremium PaymentUninsured EmployerEstoppelAppellate ReviewAdministrative ProcedurePolicy LapseNew York LawState Insurance Fund
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 622 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