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

Markowitz v. Bloomberg

Petitioners, political representatives of various districts and boroughs in the City of New York, sought to vacate a determination by the New York City Fire Department and other city agencies to close firehouses and dissolve fire companies due to fiscal constraints. They alleged inadequate notice, an arbitrary and capricious decision, and violations of the New York State and City Environmental Quality Review Acts (SEQRA/CEQR). The court found the respondents' decision was not arbitrary or capricious and did not violate environmental laws, categorizing the closures as 'Type II' actions under SEQRA, thus exempt from extensive environmental review. However, the court did identify a failure by respondents to provide proper written notice to specific community entities concerning the closing of Engine Company 261, as mandated by the New York City Charter 487(a). Despite this procedural flaw, the court denied injunctive relief to restore the unit, concluding that the omission was inadvertent and did not prejudice the public's opportunity for protest and debate.

Fiscal CrisisFire DepartmentFirehouse ClosuresPublic SafetyEnvironmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)New York City CharterNotice RequirementsInjunctive ReliefAdministrative LawJudicial Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Giglio v. Fehlhaber Horn Corp.

The claimant, a 57-year-old construction worker, suffered two compensable back injuries in 1969 and 1974, leading to a finding of total permanent disability and case closure in 1977. Later, medical examinations by Drs. Foster and Mincy prompted an apportionment change but reaffirmed permanent total disability. In 1981, the claimant applied to reopen his cases based on Dr. Teresi's report suggesting permanent partial disability, which would offer financial advantages given his retirement and Social Security benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the reopening application, asserting no change in physical condition and that the prior disability determination was conclusive as it was not appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's refusal to reopen was not arbitrary or capricious, despite its misapplication of the 'law of the case' doctrine.

Workers' CompensationDisability ClassificationCase ReopeningPermanent Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical EvidenceJudicial ReviewBoard DiscretionAppellate ProcedureFinancial Advantage
References
3
Case No. MON 310553
Regular
Sep 05, 2007

, LAZARO MARTINEZ vs. , WEDGESTONE CORP.;, CRUM & FORSTER

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's order closing discovery. The applicant argued that discovery should not have been closed as their serious and willful misconduct claim was not addressed at the Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) and the case was subsequently taken off calendar. The Board agreed that the closure of discovery was improper, particularly since the case was taken off calendar, and the relevant statute does not mandate closure in such circumstances.

Petition for removalSerious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553Mandatory settlement conferenceDiscovery closedTaken off calendarIndustrial injuryIncreased benefitsWCJ orderRescind order
References
0
Case No. ADJ7269617
Regular
Nov 28, 2011

LARRY MCATEE vs. WOLSELEY MANAGEMENT, INC dba FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC, PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant's claims for specific and cumulative trauma industrial injuries to his back and nervous system. The defendant petitioned for removal and reconsideration after the administrative law judge (WCJ) closed discovery. Parties subsequently agreed to conduct additional discovery, which the WCJ acknowledged and recommended rescinding the discovery closure order. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the discovery closure order, and dismissed the petition for reconsideration as moot.

RemovalReconsiderationClosing DiscoveryRescinded OrderMandatory Settlement ConferencePetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjurySpecific InjuryCumulative Trauma
References
0
Case No. ADJ11292762 ADJ11292764 ADJ12720128
Regular
Feb 07, 2020

LETICIA GARCIA vs. CKE RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS, INC./TRAVELERS, ARM MANAGEMENT, INC./STATE FARM

Defendants petitioned for removal, arguing the WCJ improperly took the case off calendar after the applicant filed a new application for the same injury, which they claim was a tactic to reopen discovery past the mandatory settlement conference closure. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the matter to the trial level. The Board will determine if the new application is duplicative and, if so, it should be dismissed, with potential sanctions considered. This ensures discovery closure rules are not circumvented.

Petition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderDuplicative ApplicationReopening DiscoveryDiscovery ClosureMandatory Settlement ConferenceLabor Code Section 5502WCAB JurisdictionInoperative Statute of LimitationsSanction
References
4
Case No. ADJ9286921; ADJ9286927
Regular
Jul 31, 2014

MARIA MADRID vs. SF APPAREL, INC., CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY c/o BROOKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding the trial date and vacating the discovery closure. This was due to procedural issues: no pretrial conference statement was filed, and a petition to join a potentially responsible insurance carrier (ICW) was filed late. The Board also found insufficient medical evidence to support awards, vacating the discovery closure to allow for further development. Commissioner Sweeney concurred with vacating the trial date but dissented on allowing further discovery, arguing the defendant lacked diligence.

Petition for RemovalWCJ Order RescindedTrial Date VacatedMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosureDue ProcessDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedPretrial Conference StatementInsurance Company of the WestPetition for Joinder
References
0
Case No. ADJ1649220
Regular
Aug 19, 2009

ERIC LUND vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY (STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND) LAKEPORT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (FASIS), CLEARLAKE OAKS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (FASIS)

This case involves a firefighter claiming industrial injury to his jaw and tonsil cancer, with the initial finding supporting the presumption of injury. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing that the WCJ improperly relied on medical opinions obtained after discovery closure and in violation of physician selection procedures. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the initial findings, and returned the matter for further proceedings due to procedural errors in admitting key medical evidence. The Board emphasized that evidence obtained after discovery closure and potentially exceeding applicant's rights under Labor Code section 4062.1(e) should not have been admitted.

Labor Code section 3212.1squamous cell carcinomatonsil cancerlymph node cancerfirefighter injurycumulative injurypresumption of injuryrebutted presumptionLabor Code section 4062.1panel QME
References
3
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02615 [138 AD3d 682]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2016

Federico v. Defoe Corp.

The injured plaintiff, Nicholas Federico, a laborer for El Sol Contracting, was struck by a vehicle while performing lane closures on the Gowanus Expressway. He and his wife sued Defoe Corp., another contractor on the project, alleging common-law negligence for prematurely removing its lane closures which El Sol had "piggybacked" on. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted Defoe Corp.'s motion for summary judgment, determining that Defoe owed no duty of care to Federico under the Espinal exceptions and that its conduct was not a proximate cause of the accident. Upon reargument, the court adhered to its original determination. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, dismissing the negligence cause of action against Defoe Corp.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentNegligenceSummary JudgmentDuty of CareProximate CauseContractual ObligationThird-Party LiabilityAppellate ReviewLaborer
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Nurses Ass'n v. State University

The petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against SUNY and its Trustees to halt the closure of Long Island College Hospital (LICH). The core contention was that SUNY violated the Open Meetings Law during the decision-making process concerning LICH's future. The court found that SUNY's notice for an executive session was deliberately vague and failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the planned discussion on LICH's closure. This lack of transparency, the court concluded, violated the statutory requirements of the Open Meetings Law. As a result, the court granted the petition, annulled the respondents' determination to close LICH, and issued an injunction preventing further action until compliance with the Open Meetings Law and other relevant statutes. The request for a preliminary injunction was deemed moot.

Open Meetings LawTransparencyGovernment SecrecyPublic OfficialsInjunctive ReliefDeclaratory ReliefExecutive SessionPublic Officers LawCPLR Article 78Long Island College Hospital
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2004

In re the Claim of Jenkins

Claimant, a former customer service representative for NCO Financial Systems, Inc., applied for temporary extended unemployment compensation benefits under TEUC-A after her discharge due to office closure. The Administrative Law Judge initially granted the benefits, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed the decision, finding the claimant ineligible. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding that the claimant's separation was not caused by any of the qualifying events specified in TEUC-A, such as a reduction in airline service due to terrorist action, airport closure, or military conflict. The court found the Board's determination to have a rational basis and be supported by substantial evidence, dismissing the claimant's argument that her discharge was linked to Airborne's business loss post-September 11, 2001.

Unemployment BenefitsTEUC-AExtended BenefitsDisplaced WorkersAirline Industry ImpactAdministrative AppealEligibility CriteriaAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceOffice Closure
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 221 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