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

In re Ray

The Commissioner of Social Services filed neglect petitions against June Ray concerning her two children, Laura and Darnell. The petitions alleged the mother failed to provide proper psychiatric care for Laura, who exhibited hyperactivity and emotional disturbance. Despite recommendations from school counselors and social workers, and referrals to treatment centers, the respondent consistently failed to follow through with Laura's therapy, believing nothing was wrong with her. Medical testimony confirmed Laura's emotional neglect and the need for psychiatric intervention. The court found Laura Ray to be a neglected child due to the mother's unwillingness to pursue recommended therapy, but dismissed the petition regarding Darnell Ray, citing insufficient evidence of neglect for the second child.

NeglectChild WelfareFamily Court ActEmotional NeglectPsychiatric CareParental ResponsibilityChild ProtectionMedical InterventionImpaired Emotional Health
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1993

Ray v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Larry Ray, a maintenance worker, and Blake Willett, an LIRR Police Officer, were involved in a physical altercation where Willett allegedly beat and handcuffed Ray. Ray was later released by Willett's supervisor. Plaintiffs sued Willett and the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) for battery, false arrest and imprisonment, negligent retention, and civil rights violations under 42 USC § 1983. The Supreme Court, Kings County, dismissed claims against the LIRR for negligent retention and civil rights violations and dismissed the complaint against Willett due to defective service of process. The jury found Willett liable for battery and false arrest/imprisonment but not for civil rights violation. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the dismissals, concluding that Willett's conduct was not within the scope of employment and he was not acting under color of state law, and that service upon Willett was indeed defective.

BatteryFalse ImprisonmentCivil Rights ViolationNegligent RetentionRespondeat SuperiorPolice MisconductPersonal JurisdictionService of ProcessAppellate LawKings County
References
17
Case No. ADJ13262420
Regular
Oct 20, 2025

JOSE MORALES vs. KENNETH C. RAY, COMPASS DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, INC., BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted defendant Kenneth C. Ray's petition for reconsideration of an Amended Findings and Award (F&A) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 15, 2025. The original F&A had found that applicant Jose Morales was employed by Kenneth C. Ray and sustained an industrial injury but was not employed by Barrett Business Services, Inc. The Board rescinded the F&A and substituted a new F&A, affirming Morales's employment by Kenneth C. Ray and not by BBSI. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings under a new WCJ to determine issues regarding employment with Compass Development and Construction Inc., the participation of the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund, and the specific body parts injured.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings and Awardarising out of and in the course of employmentemploymentliabilitythird-party administratorsubstantial evidencecausationdeposition testimony
References
18
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03790
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Matter of Hamling

Jerry Ray Hamling, an attorney admitted in New York in 2015, pleaded guilty in June 2020 to falsifying business records in the second degree, a class A misdemeanor. This conviction stemmed from his actions directing his payroll processing company, Affinity Human Resources, LLC, to treat one of a construction client's companies as separate, leading to knowing omissions in payroll records. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department moved to impose discipline, citing the conviction as a "serious crime." The Court concurred, finding the conviction, which included intent to defraud, qualified as a serious crime under Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d). Weighing mitigating factors like a clean disciplinary record against aggravating factors such as illegal conduct despite substantial legal experience, the Court ordered a one-year suspension from the practice of law to safeguard the public and uphold professional integrity.

Attorney MisconductFalsifying Business RecordsSerious CrimeProfessional DisciplineSuspension of AttorneyPayroll FraudIntent to DefraudAppellate DivisionJudiciary Law 90Disciplinary Proceedings
References
5
Case No. ANA 0405476
Regular
Apr 04, 2008

RESEANNE RAY vs. VERIZON WIRELESS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMEN SERVICES

This case involves Applicant Roseanne Ray's challenge to the calculated average weekly wage (AWW) and resulting temporary disability indemnity rate in her workers' compensation claim against Verizon Wireless. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding a clerical error in the original award and a mutual mistake regarding the AWW calculation. The Board amended the award to increase the temporary disability indemnity rate to \$830.78 per week based on applicant's pre-injury earnings, finding she was underpaid.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationStipulations and Request for AwardTemporary Total DisabilityAverage Weekly WagesMutual Mistake of FactClerical ErrorIndemnity RatePermanent DisabilityMedical-Legal Expenses
References
0
Case No. ADJ18067229
Regular
Jul 10, 2025

RAY GUTIERREZ vs. CMAX COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE, INC.; PALOMAR SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by CMAX COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE, INC. and PALOMAR SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (Defendants) regarding the continuation of home health care for applicant RAY GUTIERREZ. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's finding that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proof to show a change in the applicant's medical condition or circumstances to justify terminating previously authorized ongoing home health care, citing the principles established in Patterson v. The Oaks Farm. The decision also clarified the applicability of Labor Code section 5909 regarding the timeline for acting on reconsideration petitions, which was met by the Board. Commissioner Razo dissented, arguing Patterson should not apply due to the initial limited authorization and that a change in circumstances was evident.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5909Utilization ReviewPatterson v. The Oaks FarmRequest for AuthorizationChange of CircumstancesHome Health CareMedical NecessityWCJ Report
References
15
Case No. ADJ7479169
Regular
Aug 28, 2012

GEORGE HANFORD vs. CALIFORNIA AUTHORITY OF RACING FAIRS, RAY THOMAS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant, George Hanford, who claims injury arising out of and in the course of employment with defendant Ray Thomas. Thomas sought reconsideration of an administrative law judge's finding that the September 10, 2009 injury was work-related. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues. This decision will permit a more complete understanding of the record before issuing a final, reasoned decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeEmploymentLaborerFictitious Business NameBusiness and Professions CodeElectronic Adjudication Management SystemPetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ9917545
Regular
Nov 30, 2018

Richard Ray vs. Jed Francis, Inc., Zurich American Insurance Group, American Claims Management

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that Richard Ray sustained an industrial injury. This injury, originating from an eye incident, led to a MRSA infection, epidural abscess, paraplegia, and severe permanent impairments. Medical evidence from IME Dr. Feinberg, Dr. Edington, and Dr. Baum established a medical probability that the initial eye injury caused the subsequent severe cascade of medical conditions. The Board affirmed the WCJ's credibility determination regarding the applicant's testimony, finding no substantial contrary evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial causationepidural abscessMRSAparaplegiasubstantial medical evidenceindependent medical evaluatorarising out of and in the course of employmentmedical sequelaeapportionment
References
0
Case No. ADJ6772495; ADJ7394371; ADJ11006855; ADJ7648530; ADJ6788916
Regular
Oct 22, 2025

Amy Stacy Bosko, Elsie Gonzales, Marilyn Lonzanida, Ray Dunhams, Kuchita Hawthorne vs. Learning Care Group, Coca Cola Enterprises, IHSS Solano County, AC Transit, UPS

Applicants Amy Stacy Bosko, Elsie Gonzales, Marilyn Lonzanida, Ray Dunhams, and Kuchita Hawthorne filed a joint Petition for Removal challenging a Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) July 13, 2022 orders. These orders denied their petitions to set their cases on a non-OD-Legal block day and to terminate all OD-Legal Block days at the Oakland District Office, citing the WCJ's lack of authority. The Appeals Board, after reviewing the petition and the WCJ's report, denied the Petition for Removal. The Board determined that removal, an extraordinary remedy, was not warranted as the petitioners failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy.

Petition for RemovalWCABWCJOD-Legal Block DayScheduling AuthorityExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAppeals Board
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2001

Nguyen v. Neroc, Inc.

On June 10, 1997, the unnamed plaintiff suffered personal injuries when a machine fell on him while he and co-employee Ray Perry were loading it into a truck registered to Neroc, Inc. Defendants Neroc, Inc. and Ray Perry sought summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied both motions. On appeal, the order was modified. Summary judgment was granted for Ray Perry, dismissing the complaint against him, as he was insulated from liability by the Workers’ Compensation Law as a co-employee of the plaintiff. However, summary judgment was properly denied for Neroc, Inc., as a triable issue of fact existed regarding its independent negligence in failing to properly equip and maintain the truck.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentCo-Employee LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityEmployer NegligenceTruck MaintenanceAppellate ReviewTriable Issue of FactPrima Facie Showing
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 80 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