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. ADJ2813255 (STK 0210632)
Regular
Nov 08, 2011

JONA DUNCAN vs. J.M. KECKLER MEDICAL COMPANY INC, REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY (ENDURANCE INSURANCE)

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for cumulative trauma injury to the lower back and right leg. The applicant, Jona Duncan, claims injury while employed by J.M. Keckler Medical Company, Inc. The insurer, Redwood Fire and Casualty, filed a petition for removal, arguing that the issuance of an arbitrator panel by the WCJ would prematurely cut off discovery. The WCAB denied removal, finding the petition premature and lacking a showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which stated that Redwood's fears of lost discovery were unsubstantiated and that Endurance had indicated contribution proceedings would only commence after the case-in-chief was resolved.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeMandatory ArbitrationCumulative TraumaInsurerContribution ProceedingsCase-in-ChiefDiscovery RightsPrejudice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Harris

Plaintiff Robert Jones, an incarcerated individual at Sing Sing, initiated this action alleging his cell was searched multiple times in retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights and in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, along with various property deprivations. Defendants, including correctional officers Harris and Allen, and Superintendent Marshall, moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and to state a claim. The court granted dismissal of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims related to cell searches and alleged sexual harassment, as well as First Amendment retaliation claims concerning cell searches, property destruction, and false misconduct reports, citing insufficient factual allegations or failure to meet constitutional thresholds. However, the court denied dismissal of plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim regarding the deprivation of three specific items of property against defendants Allen and Marshall, requesting further legal briefing on questions concerning the exhaustion of administrative remedies and access to post-deprivation procedures. Motions filed by the plaintiff for summary judgment and in limine were denied; the former as futile due to lack of exhaustion or constitutional violation, and the latter as premature.

Prisoner RightsFirst AmendmentEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessRetaliationCell SearchProperty DeprivationQualified ImmunityAdministrative Remedies
References
45
Case No. ADJ6949049
Regular
Jul 23, 2015

DANIR GALVEZ vs. FATBURGER CORPORATION, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant sought dismissal of the applicant's claim for failure to prosecute, but the WCJ denied the petition, finding it prematurely filed due to a mailing service calculation error. The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding the applicant received adequate notice and opportunity to respond, despite the WCJ's procedural calculation. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order and returned the matter for the issuance of a ten-day Notice of Intention to Dismiss.

WCAB Rule 10582Petition for RemovalPetition to DismissDeclaration of Readiness to Proceedfailure to prosecutemail service extensionstatutory interpretationadministrative law judgeNotice of Intention to DismissApplicant
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2005

Pautienis v. Legacy Capital Corp.

This case concerns an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's negligence and conversion claims and granted summary judgment against her remaining claims. The court ruled that the plaintiff could not invoke equitable estoppel against a statute of limitations defense because the alleged misrepresentation was identical to the basis of the negligence claim, with the cause of action accruing upon the issuance of viatical contracts. Defendants successfully moved for summary judgment by presenting purchase agreements that disclosed the risks about which the plaintiff complained. The plaintiff's opposing arguments and her claim that summary judgment was premature due to outstanding discovery were found unavailing.

NegligenceConversionStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissViatical ContractsInvestment RisksDiscoveryAppellate Decision
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Melnick v. Consolidated Edison, Inc.

Lauren Melnick, pregnant, slipped and fell on a manhole cover, claiming it caused premature labor and her daughter Jenny Fay Kusner's autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and pervasive developmental disorder (PDD). Defendant Consolidated Edison, Inc. moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert from testifying that prematurity and low birth weight cause autism, arguing this theory lacks general acceptance in the medical community. Following a Frye hearing, the court, presided over by Justice Joseph J. Maltese, granted the defendant's motion, finding the plaintiffs' expert's opinion scientifically unreliable and speculative. The court reasoned that medical literature only shows an "association" between very low birth weight/extreme prematurity and developmental issues, not a direct causal link, and that the facts of Jenny's birth (34.2 weeks, 5 lbs 4 oz) did not align with the extreme cases in cited studies. Consequently, the plaintiffs' claims for injury related to Jenny's autism/PDD were dismissed.

Expert Witness PreclusionFrye StandardCausation in Tort LawMedical MalpracticePremature BirthLow Birth WeightAutism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD)NeurologyPediatrics
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2007

Assoko v. City of New York

Seventeen homeowners ("Plaintiffs") brought suit against the City of New York, NYC Partnership Housing Development Fund Company, Danois Architects, and other public and private defendants. Plaintiffs alleged constitutional violations (Equal Protection and Due Process) and state law torts arising from the purchase of defective government-subsidized homes in Central Harlem. They claimed inadequate inspections by the City, wrongful issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, and denial of independent legal and engineering assistance. District Judge Richard J. Holwell granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all federal claims. The Equal Protection claim was dismissed for failing to identify specific disparate treatment or irrational governmental action. The Due Process claim was dismissed as plaintiffs lacked a protected property interest in housing regulation enforcement or the non-issuance of Certificates, and the wrongful issuance did not constitute a constitutional injury. The Title VI Civil Rights Act claim was dismissed due to conclusory allegations of discrimination. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their Equal Protection and Title VI claims, but not the Due Process claim, which was deemed futile.

HousingConstitutional LawEqual Protection ClauseDue Process ClauseCivil Rights Act of 1964Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to DismissProperty InterestsGovernment SubsidiesDefective ConstructionNew York City
References
44
Case No. LBO 0299050
Regular
Sep 10, 2007

MARICELA TAROS vs. WEST COAST AEROSPACE, INC.; AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE CO., Administered by BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because no benefits had yet been awarded, rendering the petition premature. The Board also noted that the Workers' Compensation Judge likely lacked jurisdiction to award temporary disability benefits beyond five years from the date of injury, as the alleged disability arose outside this period. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as both premature and procedurally questionable regarding jurisdiction.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition to ReopenStipulated AwardTemporary Total DisabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerDate of InjuryJurisdictionNew and Further DisabilityAggrieved Party
References
5
Case No. ADJ6786901
Regular
Aug 24, 2010

IDELFONSO RODRIGUEZ vs. GARDEN FRESH RESTAURANTS CORPORATION, TRAVELERS PROP. CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves a defendant's premature petition for dismissal of a workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the prior order was interlocutory and not a final determination of substantive rights. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the defendant's request for removal, finding no basis for extraordinary relief due to lack of demonstrated prejudice. The WCAB affirmed the judge's denial of dismissal as premature under Board Rule 10582.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalRemovalInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderLabor CodeSubstantive RightLiabilityApplication for Adjudication
References
7
Case No. ADJ8979705
Regular
Oct 01, 2016

VENANCIO GALLEGOS vs. ROSE & SHORE RITE WAY RR MEAT PACKERS, INCORPORATED/RITE-WAY MEAT PACKERS, INCORPORATED, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order to further develop the record. This decision was based on the WCJ's premature order to depose the original PQME, Dr. Steiger, before ruling on whether his reports were admissible. The Board found that requiring this deposition without a ruling on Dr. Steiger's availability would be premature and cause irreparable harm. The case is returned to the trial level for a status conference before a new judge to address the PQME dispute and other issues.

Petition for RemovalVacating SubmissionPQME depositionMedical report admissibilityCross-examinationWCJ orderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRecord developmentPrecedentIrreparable harm
References
3
Case No. ADJ6939683
Regular
Sep 03, 2013

MARGARITA ANGUIANO vs. COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT AT PASO ROBLES, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

Here's a summary for a lawyer: The Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration because the Notice of Intention to Dismiss Lien is an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order subject to reconsideration. The lien claimant failed to appear at the scheduled lien trial, prompting the Notice of Intention to Dismiss. The Board found the petition premature and lacking the required detail for reconsideration. The matter will return to the WCJ to consider sanctions against the lien claimant for the premature and deficient petition.

Notice of Intention to Dismiss LienLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightsProcedural OrdersSkeletal PetitionSanctionsCosts
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 600 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