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
Dec 29, 2014

City of New York v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.

The City and State of New York sued FedEx Ground, alleging the knowing delivery of unstamped cigarettes from 2005 to 2012, which violated the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA), the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and New York Public Health Law § 1399-ii, and constituted a public nuisance. FedEx Ground filed a motion to dismiss these claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss the CCTA, RICO, and RICO conspiracy claims, finding sufficient grounds for aggregation of sales, pattern of predicate acts, participation in the enterprise, injury to business or property, and proximate causation. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the New York Public Health Law claim, ruling that the 2013 amendment, which would grant the City and State enforcement authority, did not apply retroactively. The court also granted the motion to dismiss the public nuisance claim, concluding that it primarily involved alleged tax evasion, which is already subject to comprehensive regulation, rather than unauthorized shipments to minors.

Contraband CigarettesCigarette TraffickingRICO ActPublic Health LawPublic NuisanceMotion to DismissTax EvasionStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationProximate Cause
References
42
Case No. ADJ7030286, ADJ7222855
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

DEBORAH STANFIELD HALL vs. OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The applicant attempted to disqualify the judge after a trial where witnesses testified, claiming the judge was disrespectful and showed favoritism. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition, finding it untimely because it was filed after the swearing of the first witness. Additionally, the petition lacked the required affidavit supporting the disqualification grounds and did not specify any grounds under Code of Civil Procedure section 641. Therefore, the WCAB found the petition procedurally deficient and dismissed it.

Petition for DisqualificationLabor Code section 5311WCJ RadosPetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10452affidavit or declarationpenalty of perjuryswearing of the first witnessindustrial injuriescustomer service clerk
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brentwood Pain & Rehabilitation Services, P.C. v. Allstate Insurance

This opinion addresses whether Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) procedures are subject to the same fee limitations as X-rays under New York's no-fault auto insurance law. Plaintiffs, a group of MRI service providers ("Providers"), argued that applying x-ray fee schedules to MRIs is improper and violates insurance contracts. Defendants, numerous insurance companies ("Insurers"), along with the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) and Department of Insurance (DOI), contended that the fee limitations for multiple diagnostic x-ray procedures (Ground Rule 3 of the WCB Fee Schedule) should also apply to MRIs. The court, deferring to the interpretations of the WCB and DOI, found their application of Ground Rule 3 to MRIs to be reasonable. Consequently, the court granted the Insurers' motion for summary judgment, denied the Providers' cross-motion for summary judgment, and denied the Providers' motion for class certification as moot.

MRIX-rayNo-Fault InsuranceFee ScheduleWorkers' Compensation BoardDepartment of InsuranceRegulatory InterpretationSummary JudgmentClass ActionDiagnostic Imaging
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoesl v. Kearns

Petitioner, a police officer and president of the Garden City Police Benevolent Association, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking a judgment to prevent the Chief of the Garden City Police Department from allowing "Special Police Officers" to drive departmental vehicles with police markings. Petitioner contended this practice violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 396(2), which restricts such operation to members or employees of a duly organized police department. The respondent cross-moved for dismissal, citing various procedural grounds including the Statute of Limitations. The court treated the proceeding as one in the nature of mandamus, denied the dismissal on procedural and Statute of Limitations grounds, and addressed the merits. The court found that "Special Police Officers," despite serving without remuneration, are considered "members" or "employees" under relevant statutes and departmental rules, and their use of marked departmental vehicles for official business is not prohibited by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 396(2). Consequently, the court dismissed the petition.

CPLR Article 78MandamusProhibition WritPolice DepartmentSpecial Police OfficersVehicle OperationStatutory InterpretationVillage LawEmployment StatusGovernmental Discretion
References
7
Case No. 06 Civ. 7784
Regular Panel Decision

National City Golf Finance v. Higher Ground Country Club Management Co.

Defendant and third-party plaintiff Higher Ground asserted claims against third-party defendant ProLink for breach of warranty and for indemnification and contribution. ProLink moved to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint or compel arbitration, citing an arbitration clause and a forum selection clause. Higher Ground argued the agreement was unsigned and unenforceable under the statute of frauds and that claims were outside the scope. The court, applying the Federal Arbitration Act, found an agreement to arbitrate existed due to Higher Ground's conduct, and the claims fell within the broad scope of the arbitration clause. ProLink’s motion was granted, and proceedings on the Third-Party Complaint were stayed pending arbitration in Maricopa County, Arizona.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Contract LawBreach of WarrantyIndemnificationContributionForum Selection ClauseStatute of FraudsAgreement to ArbitrateThird-Party Complaint
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sines v. Opportunities For Broome, Inc.

Petitioner, a foreman, was dismissed from employment by a not-for-profit corporation in December 1987 for alleged misconduct, including sleeping on the job. After exhausting internal grievance procedures, which upheld the dismissal in September 1988, petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement and back pay. The court determined that an article 78 proceeding was appropriate against the not-for-profit corporation. Petitioner challenged the termination on procedural grounds and argued the finding of just cause was arbitrary and the penalty disproportionate. The court found no merit in petitioner's procedural claims and concluded that the finding of just cause was not arbitrary and capricious, and the penalty was not disproportionately harsh. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

CPLR Article 78Employment TerminationGrievance ProcedureNot-for-Profit CorporationArbitrary and CapriciousJust CauseWorkplace MisconductSleeping on JobFailure to SuperviseDue Process
References
7
Case No. Dkt. # 1, 41
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. Poole

Petitioner Frederick Walker filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his 2000 conviction for robbery and assault in Monroe County. He alleged improper show-up identification procedures and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court addressed four grounds: the suggestiveness of two show-up procedures, insufficient evidence for attempted robbery, and multiple claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court denied the claim regarding the second show-up on the merits, found the claims concerning the first show-up and evidentiary sufficiency to be procedurally defaulted, and dismissed the ineffective assistance claims for lack of deficient performance or prejudice. Consequently, Walker's request for a writ of habeas corpus was denied and his petitions dismissed.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselShow-up IdentificationDue ProcessRobberyAssaultAttempted RobberyProcedural DefaultExhaustion of State RemediesState Conviction Challenge
References
44
Case No. Index No. 157783/18, 596011/19; Appeal No. 5535; Case No. 2024-06221
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2026

Tejeda v. 57th & 6th Ground LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County. The plaintiff, Juan Miguel Presinal Tejeda, was granted partial summary judgment on his Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims after being injured due to a scaffold lacking guardrails. The Supreme Court also granted landlords' motion for summary judgment on their cross-claims for contractual and common-law indemnification and breach of contract against the plaintiff's employer and third-party defendants. The appellate court found that the employer's insurance policies were non-compliant with lease requirements, creating a gap in coverage and resulting in damages to the landlords. The court concluded that the violation of Labor Law § 240(1) proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries and affirmed the lower court's decisions.

Scaffolding AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnificationBreach of ContractInsurance Coverage DisputePremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyThird-Party ClaimsDuty to Provide Safe Workplace
References
4
Case No. ADJ6573692
Regular
May 09, 2016

Gloria Mares vs. 99 Cents Only Stores, Broadspire

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved a petition for reconsideration filed by lien claimants. The petition was dismissed because the lien claimants' representative, Frank Ureno, failed to file a proper Notice of Representation with the Board. This procedural defect, the failure to comply with notice requirements for representation, was grounds for dismissal. The Board also noted that the petition would have been denied on its merits if not for the procedural issue.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien claimantsNotice of RepresentationHearing RepresentativeCalifornia Code of Regulations 10774.5DismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportUn-numbered pagesOrder Dismissing Lien Balance
References
0
Case No. ADJ10387444, ADJ10387443
Regular
Sep 19, 2018

TERESA GALLEGOS vs. OMEGA EXTRUDING CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Teresa Gallegos' petition for reconsideration. The petition was deemed "skeletal" for failing to specify grounds, cite evidence, or articulate legal principles. Additionally, it was dismissed for lack of proof of service on the adverse party, Omega Extruding Corporation. The Board noted that even if not dismissed on procedural grounds, the petition would have been denied on the merits based on the WCJ's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionProof of ServiceAdverse PartyLabor Code § 5902Appeals Board RulesCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10842Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10846Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10852Labor Code § 5905
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 3,411 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