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
Mar 13, 1992

In re the Claim of Bishop

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which disqualified her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits for voluntarily leaving her job without good cause. The claimant resigned from her typist role due to temporary receptionist duties, alleging it caused her illness. However, the employer testified the receptionist role was temporary backup during a vacation, with her typing duties reassigned. The Board found she left for personal, non-compelling reasons, a conclusion upheld by the court due to substantial evidence and the absence of medical advice for her resignation. Furthermore, benefits previously received were properly ruled recoverable under Labor Law § 597 (4).

Unemployment insuranceVoluntary resignationGood cause for leaving employmentTemporary job assignmentMedical adviceRecoverable benefitsAppellate reviewPersonal reasonsTypistReceptionist
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 1993

Claim of Patella v. Accettola

The claimant sustained an occupational disease, a finding affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The employer appealed this decision, arguing that the claimant's duties were not typical for a receptionist, and thus, her condition should not be considered an occupational disease. The court found no basis to reverse the Board's decisions and upheld the finding that the claimant's condition constituted an occupational disease. The decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board were affirmed without costs.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation BoardAppealsReceptionist DutiesEmployer AppealBoard Decision UpheldAffirmed DecisionWork-Related InjuryClaimant Rights
References
0
Case No. ADJ8653693, ADJ9198791, ADJ9556591
Regular
Mar 12, 2019

KIMBERLY ALLEN vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case concerns three workers' compensation claims for injuries sustained by the applicant, Kimberly Allen, as a receptionist. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review findings that psychiatric impairment ratings were applicable due to alleged violent acts. The Board amended the findings to exclude psychiatric impairment from the permanent disability awards, determining the applicant's injuries did not result from a "violent act" under the relevant Labor Code section. Consequently, the permanent disability ratings and attorney's fees for all three claims were revised downwards.

AOE/COEPsychiatric InjuryPermanent DisabilityReconsiderationViolent ActLabor Code Section 4660.1Compensable ConsequenceAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Cumulative TraumaSpecific Injury
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clanton v. Salon Visentin, Inc.

Claimant, a former shampooer and full-time receptionist, developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and right epicondylitis. She sought workers' compensation benefits, claiming her injuries were an occupational disease due to strenuous repetitive movements associated with her employment. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board denied her claim, finding insufficient evidence of a recognizable link between her condition and a distinctive feature of her occupation. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that the record supported the finding that there was insufficient evidence of a specific repetitive movement suggesting a link between her job and injuries.

Occupational diseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeEpicondylitisRepetitive motion injuryWorkers' compensation benefitsCausal relationshipMedical evidenceSufficiency of evidenceAppellate reviewBoard decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mendez v. City of New York

The claimant, a receptionist for the City of New York, was injured in an explosion outside her police station workplace after leaving her desk to investigate. The employer sought workers' compensation benefits, but the claimant opposed it, arguing she had abandoned her employment. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed that her injuries arose within the scope of her employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's actions were a reasonable reaction to the explosion and she intended to return to her post, thus not constituting abandonment or deviation from employment. The court concluded that the accident was an incident and risk of her employment.

Accidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentDeviation from EmploymentEmployer LiabilityWorkplace SafetyExplosion IncidentAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 1999

Umansky v. Masterpiece International Ltd.

The plaintiff, a receptionist and clerical worker, was terminated by the defendants after being diagnosed with bilateral ulnar nerve entrapment, a condition similar to carpal tunnel syndrome. The plaintiff alleged discrimination based on disability, violating Executive Law § 296 and Administrative Code § 8-107. The defendants contended the termination was due to poor job performance. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, citing a material question of fact regarding whether the disability prevented the plaintiff from performing her job or if there was a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for termination. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, upholding the denial of summary judgment.

discriminationdisabilitywrongful terminationsummary judgmenthuman rights lawulnar nerve entrapmentemployment lawappellate reviewmaterial question of factKings County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2000

Claim of Elwood v. K-Mart Corp.

In April 1992, the claimant suffered a work-related back injury requiring surgery. After returning to work, her receptionist position was eliminated, and she was offered a cashier role that required prolonged standing, which exacerbated her back and leg pain. Consequently, the claimant chose to retire in February 1997 and applied for workers' compensation benefits. The employer contested this, arguing a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. However, both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found a causal connection between her disability and her decision to retire, awarding benefits. The appellate court affirmed, stating that a withdrawal from the labor market is not voluntary if disability caused or contributed to retirement, and found substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's decision.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketWork-Related InjuryDisability RetirementCausal ConnectionMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewBack InjuryEmployment TerminationCashier Position
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stupakevich v. Chater

Petitioner Stephen Stupakevich challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's final determination denying his disability insurance benefits. Stupakevich, a 46-year-old former lathe operator, alleged disability since April 3, 1992, due to injuries to his right arm, an inguinal hernia, and depression. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the petitioner retained the ability to perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy. The District Court reviewed the ALJ's decision under the substantial evidence standard, considering medical evidence from treating physicians and consultants, vocational factors, and the petitioner's testimony. The Court found that Dr. Romita's diagnosis of loss of function in the right arm was not determinative of statutory disability, and that the ALJ properly evaluated the petitioner's credibility regarding pain and vocational factors. The vocational expert identified jobs like receptionist, information clerk, or dispatcher that the petitioner could perform. Therefore, the court affirmed the Commissioner's decision denying benefits.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSocial Security ActDisability ClaimAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)Medical Evidence EvaluationVocational FactorsSubstantial Evidence ReviewTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacityChronic Pain Allegations
References
14
Showing 1-8 of 8 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