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. ADJ1943415 (LBO 0381428)
Regular
Aug 14, 2012

ADALBERTO JUAREZ vs. P.S. STIX INCORPORATED, NATIONAL LIABILITY AND FIRE INSURANCE, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INSURANCE COMPANIES

This case involves a lien claimant's petition for removal regarding an order to disclose a global settlement with a co-defendant. The Appeals Board found the procedural record deficient, preventing timely review of the removal petition. Ultimately, the Board granted removal on its own motion to address the "procedural morass." The Board rescinded the WCJ's order reinstating a prior minute order and dismissed the lien claimant's petition as moot, allowing for an in-camera review of the settlement agreement.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantGlobal SettlementConfidentiality clauseNon-Disclosure clauseCompromise and ReleaseMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJOrder Setting Aside
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Council of City v. Department of Homeless Services

The New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS) implemented a new Eligibility Procedure for Temporary Housing Assistance (THA) applicants. The Council of the City of New York (City Council) filed a declaratory judgment action, asserting DHS failed to comply with the notice and hearing requirements of the New York City Administrative Procedure Act (CAPA). The court affirmed lower court rulings, determining that DHS's procedure constitutes a 'rule' under CAPA, requiring public notice and hearings. The court rejected DHS's arguments that the procedure involved sufficient discretion or fell under an exemption, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the procedure and its substantial impact on eligibility determinations. Consequently, the Eligibility Procedure is unenforceable until DHS adheres to CAPA's procedural mandates.

Administrative LawRulemakingDeclaratory JudgmentHomeless ServicesTemporary Housing AssistanceNew York City CharterCAPASAPAAgency DiscretionProcedural Requirements
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Spyhalsky v. Cross Construction

This case of first impression examines whether Workers' Compensation Law § 13 (a) mandates a workers’ compensation carrier to cover sperm extraction and intrauterine insemination for an injured worker who cannot procreate due to a causally related injury. The claimant sustained a work-related back injury in 1995, leading to surgery and consequential retrograde ejaculation. When conservative treatments failed, his urologists recommended artificial insemination to achieve pregnancy. The Workers’ Compensation Board authorized these procedures, ruling that the inability to naturally father a child constituted a compensable injury requiring treatment. The court affirmed this decision, emphasizing a liberal interpretation of the Workers' Compensation Law to meet its humanitarian objectives and asserting that coverage for restoring lost bodily functions extends to procreative capabilities.

Workers' Compensation LawMedical Treatment CoverageRetrograde EjaculationIntrauterine InseminationProcreation RightsCompensable InjuryBodily Function LossStatutory InterpretationSperm ExtractionMedical Necessity
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. ADJ2427648
Regular
Jul 13, 2009

MARIA ROWENA MABINI vs. HOLLYWOOD PARK CASINO, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order, which took the matter off calendar to pursue AME and QME procedures, was procedural and not a final order. The Board also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding that they failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant argued that the WCJ erred by ordering AME/QME procedures when treatment was managed under a healthcare organization contract. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, agreeing that the procedural order did not qualify for reconsideration.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOff CalendarAMEQMEHealth Care OrganizationLabor Code 4600.3Interlocutory OrderFinal Order
References
5
Case No. ADJ9139200
Regular
Dec 11, 2015

MATTHEW BAKES vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Matthew Bakes' petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be based on "final" orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues, not interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions. The WCJ's decision at issue here only resolved an intermediate procedural or evidentiary matter. Thus, it was not a final order, and the petition was procedurally improper.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsRemoval
References
5
Case No. ADJ8580497
Regular
Oct 24, 2014

Anthony Broussard, Chenequa Phelps, William Ortiz vs. Neighborhood House Association; Zenith Insurance Company, Grossmont Family Medical Group; Zenith Insurance Company, Steigerwald Dougherty, Inc.; Zenith Insurance Company

In three consolidated workers' compensation cases, the Appeals Board rescinded its prior consolidation order and imposed $1,000 in sanctions against lien claimant ARS Legal and its representative. The Board found that ARS Legal improperly attempted to compel claims adjusters' appearances via notice, misinterpreting Code of Civil Procedure section 1987(b). The Board rejected ARS Legal's arguments regarding procedural ignorance and good faith, affirming that the representative's duty included understanding proper legal procedures.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardZenith Insurance CompanyARS LegalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Quashing Notice to AppearClaims AdjusterSubpoenaWCJLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10561
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Brunswick Central School District & Brittonkill Teachers Ass'n

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted the petitioner's application to stay arbitration. The petitioner and respondent, parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), were in dispute after the petitioner denied tenure to a probationary teacher and the respondent filed a grievance challenging evaluation procedures. The Supreme Court initially granted the stay, concluding that the grievance challenged the non-arbitrable tenure decision rather than the arbitrable evaluation procedures. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that the question of whether the evaluation procedures were violated pertained to the merits of the grievance and not its arbitrability, emphasizing the limited role of courts in staying arbitration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureTenure DisputeEvaluation ProceduresArbitrabilityStay of ArbitrationAppellate ReviewLabor RelationsEducation Law
References
10
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,448 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