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
Jun 29, 1988

Claim of Baker v. Three Village Central School District

The employer appealed an amended decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which found that the claimant had a causally related disability after a head injury sustained on September 15, 1982. The employer contested the finding of disability subsequent to November 1, 1982, arguing that a psychologist's testimony should not have been considered on the issue of causal relationship because the psychologist was not a physician. The Board, however, based its decision on a comprehensive review of the record, including reports and testimony from a psychiatrist, as well as the testimony of the claimant and the psychologist. The court affirmed the Board's amended decision, finding ample expert medical evidence supporting the disability and concluding that the psychologist's testimony was relevant to the length of the disability. The court found no irrationality in the Board's conclusion and no basis to disturb the decision.

Workers' CompensationHead InjuryDisabilityCausal RelationshipPsychiatric EvaluationNeuropsychologyExpert TestimonyAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical Evidence
References
0
Case No. ADJ3103905
Regular
Oct 28, 2011

JOSE PENALOZA VALDEZ vs. MANUEL AVILA, TRANSGUARD INSURANCE, Administered By FRYE CLAIMS CONSULTATION

This case concerns an applicant awarded 68% permanent disability, including a significant portion for psyche injury, based on a psychologist's report. The defendant appeals, arguing the psychologist's report was improperly admitted and they were denied the opportunity for rebuttal. The Appeals Board rescinded the award, finding that while the report was admissible, the defendant should have been allowed to obtain a rebuttal report, especially since the psychologist was not the primary treating physician. The case is returned for further proceedings to develop the record regarding the psyche injury and disability claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryPsyche InjuryPermanent DisabilityMedical Report AdmissibilityQualified Medical EvaluatorAgreed Medical EvaluatorDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement Conference
References
0
Case No. 89-CV-0201
Regular Panel Decision

Baggio v. Lombardi

Plaintiffs Michael Baggio and Joanna Hunt initiated a lawsuit for defamation and prima facie tort against several individual employees of the U.S. Postal Service. The case was removed to federal court when the Attorney General certified that the individual defendants were acting within the scope of their employment, leading to the United States being substituted as the sole defendant. The U.S. government then moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for such claims. Plaintiffs contested the substitution and moved for remand to state court, arguing the defendants acted outside their employment scope. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, determining that it has a duty to judicially review the scope of employment issue and requiring an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual dispute.

DefamationPrima Facie TortFederal Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityScope of EmploymentMotion to DismissEvidentiary HearingUnited States Postal ServiceFederal Employees Liability ReformTort Compensation Act
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rockland County Department of Social Services ex rel. McM. v. Brian McM.

The case addresses the applicability of Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vii) to a nonparty mother's confidential communications with her psychologist and social worker during a child protective proceeding. The father, accused of sexually abusing his son, sought to subpoena the mother's records, which she moved to quash, citing privilege. The Family Court denied the motion regarding the psychologist, ruling that the privilege did not apply. This appellate court affirmed, holding that FCA § 1046 (a) (vii) abrogates psychologist-client and social worker-client privileges for all relevant evidence in child protective proceedings, not just for parties. It emphasized that the child's best interests in determining the truth of the abuse allegations and preventing unnecessary estrangement from the father outweigh the nonparty mother's confidentiality interests. The court ordered an in camera review of the subpoenaed records to determine their relevance.

Child Protective ServicesFamily Court Act Article 10Psychologist-Client PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegeChild Sexual Abuse AllegationsFact-Finding HearingSubpoena EnforcementNonparty Parent RightsIn Camera ReviewBest Interests of the Child
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04443 [207 AD3d 1110]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2022

Guida v. Rivera Investigations, Inc.

Plaintiff James R. Guida was injured when his co-employee, Alex G. Hodges, Jr., accidentally discharged a firearm during a mandatory training course required by their employer, Loomis Armored, US, LLC. Guida received workers' compensation benefits but subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit against Hodges. Hodges moved for summary judgment, asserting that the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions barred the action because both parties were acting within the scope of their employment. The Supreme Court denied Hodges's motion for summary judgment, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision. The Appellate Division found that Hodges successfully demonstrated that both he and Guida were co-employees operating within the scope of their employment, and Hodges's violation of a safety rule did not remove him from that scope. Consequently, workers' compensation was deemed the exclusive remedy, and the action against Hodges was dismissed.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyCo-employee NegligenceScope of EmploymentFirearms AccidentMandatory TrainingSummary Judgment ReversalAppellate DivisionPersonal InjuryAccidental Discharge
References
19
Case No. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Case No. ADJ10091615
Regular
Oct 20, 2016

Joan De Silva vs. Mission Hospital, SEDGWICK 14442 ORANGE

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Mission Hospital's Petition for Removal, rescinding an order that denied their motion to quash two subpoenas. The Board found the subpoenas overbroad and potentially sought documents protected by Evidence Code section 1157 (hospital peer review) and HIPAA (confidential patient information). Furthermore, the Board determined the subpoenas lacked sufficient specificity regarding the scope of records requested. The case was returned to the trial level for a hearing to address these concerns and determine the appropriate scope of discovery.

Petition for RemovalMotion to Quash SubpoenaSubpoena Duces TecumEvidence Code Section 1157HIPAAPeer Review CommitteesInfectious Control ReportsOperating RoomRedactionOverbroad Discovery
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 1992

Matter of P.

The appellant, Rashmi P., appealed a Family Court's finding that he sexually abused his daughter, Parul. The Appellate Division affirmed the order of disposition, dismissing the appeal from the superseded October 12, 1990 order. The court found that the Family Court's determination of abuse was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. This was based on consistent out-of-court statements made by the child to a social worker and a caseworker, corroborated by the testimony of a psychologist. The psychologist, an expert in child sexual abuse, stated that the child's allegations and behavior were consistent with the inter-familial, child sex-abuse syndrome. The appellant did not testify or present any evidence.

sexual abusechild abusefamily courtappellate reviewcorroborationexpert testimonyout-of-court statementschild sex-abuse syndromepreponderance of evidenceparental rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Catania v. Herbst

Plaintiff Catania, a supervisory USPS employee, sued Norma Herbst, a USPS clerk, for defamation after Herbst made statements to management regarding Catania's work habits (sleeping, fuel theft). The U.S. Attorney certified Herbst was acting within the scope of her employment, leading to the substitution of the United States as the defendant under the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA). Catania opposed this, but the court found Herbst's whistleblowing complaints were made within the scope of her employment. Consequently, the substitution was upheld, and since the FTCA bars defamation claims against the United States, the entire action was dismissed.

DefamationScope of EmploymentFederal Torts Claims ActFTCA ImmunitySubstitution of PartiesWhistleblower ProtectionUSPS EmployeeGovernmental ImmunityNew York State LawFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 1993

Konstantinovsky v. Golden Chocolate, Inc.

Vladimir Konstantinovsky, the injured plaintiff, sought damages for injuries sustained when he was struck by a forklift operated by Nemirovsky, an employee of Golden Chocolate, Inc. Golden Chocolate moved for summary judgment, arguing Nemirovsky was a special employee of Konstantinovsky's employer, Gold Star Trading Company, which would bar the suit under Workers' Compensation Law, or that Nemirovsky acted outside the scope of his employment. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding that there were issues of fact regarding whether Nemirovsky was acting within the scope of his employment or if he was a special employee of Gold Star Trading Company.

Personal InjuryForklift AccidentScope of EmploymentSpecial EmployeeSummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionNegligenceIssues of FactEmployer LiabilityKings County
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 675 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