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. ADJ769963 (VNO 0196669)
Regular
Nov 25, 2013

GEORGE GIO vs. RAY WANG also known as CHING WANG, RAYMOND LLORENS also known as THOMAS STRONG, doing business as RAYMCO BUILDERS, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking enforcement of a Rehabilitation Unit (RU) determination for vocational rehabilitation benefits and retroactive VRMA, issued on December 31, 2008. The WCJ initially found the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to enforce the RU determination, which was issued after the critical January 1, 2009, deadline for WCAB jurisdiction over such matters. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision because it was improperly made at a Mandatory Settlement Conference over the applicant's objection. The case is remanded for a new hearing before a different WCJ to address the substantive issue of enforceability.

Rehabilitation UnitVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceMandatory Settlement ConferenceEnforceabilityJurisdictionRescinded DecisionReassignmentLabor CodeAppeals Board RulesDeclaration of Readiness
References
7
Case No. Proof of Claim No. 149
Regular Panel Decision

In re DeWitt Rehabilitation & Nursing Center, Inc.

The Debtor, DeWitt Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc., moved to expunge the priority portion of a claim filed by United Staffing Registry, Inc. The Claimant sought priority status for social security, Medicare, and unemployment payments made for temporary employees it provided, citing 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5). Bankruptcy Judge Allan L. Gropper analyzed the application of § 507(a)(5) in light of case precedents, including Howard Delivery Service, Inc. The Court determined that the priority under § 507(a)(5) is intended to protect contributions for a debtor's direct employees, and the temporary employees were not employees of DeWitt. Consequently, the Debtor's objection was sustained, disallowing the priority and reclassifying the entire claim as a general unsecured claim, while also denying the Debtor's request for legal fees.

Bankruptcy LawPriority ClaimsEmployee Benefit Plans11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5)Temporary EmployeesUnsecured ClaimsIndemnificationLegal FeesClaim ExpungementStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Spinal Ass'n v. Board of Elections in the City of New York

Plaintiffs United Spinal Association and Disabled in Action brought an action against the Board of Elections in the City of New York (BOE) under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging pervasive access barriers at poll sites. The Court previously denied a preliminary injunction. Both parties subsequently moved for summary judgment. The Court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the existence of pervasive and recurring accessibility barriers and deemed the BOE's accommodation methods insufficient. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability and denied the defendants' cross-motion. The case is now referred to a Magistrate Judge for the determination of the appropriate remedy.

AccessibilityVoting RightsAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActPoll SitesSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationBoard of ElectionsMeaningful AccessReasonable Accommodation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. United States

Plaintiff Aracelie Rivera sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for personal injuries and property damage sustained on December 12, 2008. A United States Postal Service tractor-trailer struck her car while she was stopped at a red light in Manhattan. The court found the Postal driver negligent for failing to maintain a careful watch while backing up the large vehicle. Rivera was found to have met the 'serious injury' requirement of New York's no-fault statute, demonstrating significant limitations due to disc derangement and cord compression in her cervical spine. Despite a pre-existing condition from a 1996 accident, the court determined the 2008 accident caused a severe aggravation. The court awarded Rivera $250,000.00 for past and future pain and suffering.

Federal Tort Claims ActNegligenceAutomobile AccidentPersonal InjurySpinal Cord CompressionCervical Disc HerniationRadiculopathyMyelopathyMedical CausationPain and Suffering Damages
References
19
Case No. 81 C 2521
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 1981

Mandaglio v. UNITED BROTH. OF CARPENTERS, ETC.

Plaintiffs Dominick Mandaglio and Charles Ferrera, former members of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, sued the union entities and several individuals after being removed from their positions and membership. They alleged violations of the Labor-Management Reporting Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 411(a) and 529, claiming procedural improprieties during internal union trials and a conspiracy among defendants. Defendants William Konyha and William Sidell, out-of-state residents, moved to dismiss the action against them for want of personal jurisdiction in New York. The court examined New York's long-arm statute, CPLR § 302(a)(2) and (3), to determine if jurisdiction could be established. Finding no prima facie factual showing of conspiracy or substantial New York contacts for Konyha and Sidell, the court granted their motion and dismissed them from the action.

Labor-Management Reporting Disclosure ActUnion MembershipRemoval from OfficePersonal JurisdictionConspiracyExtraterritorial JurisdictionNew York Long-Arm StatuteSummary DismissalDue ProcessInternal Union Procedures
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Caballero

Saul Caballero, who pleaded guilty to two drug conspiracies (heroin and methamphetamine distribution), objected to an aggravating role enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines, arguing it would increase his mandatory-minimum sentence and thus require a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt as per Alleyne v. United States. Following a two-day Fatico hearing, the District Court concluded that the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Caballero was a manager or supervisor of the heroin distribution conspiracy, but not the crystal methamphetamine conspiracy. The Court also rejected Caballero's argument that Alleyne mandates a jury to determine safety-valve eligibility, affirming that judicial fact-finding by a preponderance of the evidence for safety-valve criteria is constitutionally permissible as it potentially lessens, rather than increases, the mandatory minimum sentence. Therefore, the defendant's motion for a jury determination was denied.

Sentencing GuidelinesAggravating Role EnhancementMandatory Minimum SentenceSafety Valve EligibilityDrug ConspiracyHeroin DistributionMethamphetamine DistributionPreponderance of EvidenceJury DeterminationConstitutional Law
References
24
Case No. ADJ2723383
Regular
Oct 13, 2010

DIDIER ROSA vs. XCELSIS CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an employee seeking vocational rehabilitation services and retroactive benefits after a neck injury. The insurer, SCIF, failed to appeal a Rehabilitation Unit determination that authorized these services and benefits at the "delay rate." Although SCIF argued jurisdiction and statutory repeal issues, the Board affirmed the Unit's determination, finding SCIF waived its defenses by not appealing. However, the Board limited the award of vocational rehabilitation services, finding the right to them was inchoate and expired with legislative changes.

Rehabilitation Unitvocational rehabilitation servicesretroactive benefitsdelay rateghost statutesvested rightsinchoaterepealed statutesLabor Code section 139.5final judgment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dirma v. United States

William Dirma, an employee of Coastal Dry Dock & Repair Corp., sued the United States for personal injuries sustained on June 26, 1985, while working on scaffolding on the USS THORN in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. He alleged negligence by the defendant in the erection of the scaffolding. The court found no admiralty jurisdiction as the accident occurred in a dry dock, which is considered an extension of land. However, federal jurisdiction existed under the Federal Torts Claims Act (F.T.C.A.), requiring strict adherence to administrative claim procedures, which the plaintiff allegedly met. The court ultimately determined that Coastal, not the Navy, was responsible for erecting scaffolding and providing a safe workplace, and the plaintiff failed to prove any negligence on the part of the United States. Consequently, the plaintiff's case was dismissed.

Personal InjuryScaffolding AccidentDry DockFederal Tort Claims ActAdmiralty JurisdictionMaritime LawNegligenceIndependent ContractorSovereign ImmunityUSS THORN
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. United Air Lines, Inc.

The plaintiff, Thomas Davis, a former "ramp serviceman" for United Air Lines, Inc., sued his employer following his dismissal due to a physical disability (epilepsy). He alleged wrongful dismissal in violation of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, asserting a claim as a third-party beneficiary of a federal contract and a violation of a collective bargaining agreement which he claimed incorporated the Act's affirmative action provisions. Chief Judge Weinstein granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The court ruled that there is no private right of action under Section 503, as established in a prior appeal concerning the same plaintiff (Davis v. United Air Lines, Inc.), and that allowing a third-party beneficiary claim would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme. Furthermore, the plaintiff's claim under the collective bargaining agreement was dismissed as he failed to exhaust the mandatory Railway Labor Act procedures, and his "futility" argument was rejected.

Rehabilitation ActWrongful DismissalThird-Party BeneficiaryCollective Bargaining AgreementDisability DiscriminationRailway Labor ActMotion to DismissPrivate Right of ActionFederal Contract LawAffirmative Action
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1995

In re Jordan Rehabilitation Service, Inc.

Jordan Rehabilitation Service, Inc., providing medical and vocational rehabilitative services, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board assessed additional unemployment insurance contributions, finding that specialists hired by Jordan were employees, not independent contractors, between 1989 and 1991. The court reviewed whether there was substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion of an employer-employee relationship. Key factors included Jordan's control over recruitment, screening, compensation, billing, and contractual restrictions on specialists. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Board's decision, determining that Jordan exercised sufficient overall control to establish an employer-employee relationship and thus was liable for the contributions.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorRehabilitation ServicesLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceControl TestJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeDepartment of Labor
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 10,618 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