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

Ralph v. Oliver

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, affirming in part and reinstating a cause of action. It was deemed proper to defer the plaintiff’s negligence claim against a coemployee defendant, pending a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding the course of employment. However, the court ruled that the plaintiff could pursue an intentional tort of assault claim independently, as it falls outside the Workers’ Compensation Law if the assault was committed with deliberate intent and outside the scope of employment. Consequently, the plaintiff's assault cause of action was reinstated.

Workers' CompensationNegligenceIntentional TortAssaultCoemployee LiabilityScope of EmploymentJudicial ReviewAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Board Deferral
References
5
Case No. ADJ4323884 (VNO 0539846) ADJ3206055 (VNO 0539850)
Regular
May 28, 2013

ROSE WALTON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION/CA STATE PRISONS/LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Legally Uninsured, Adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration for case ADJ4323884, upholding a prior WCJ decision that replaced an earlier award vacated due to a writ of review. For case ADJ3206055, the Board granted reconsideration and reinstated a June 12, 2012, Findings and Award. This reinstated award found the applicant sustained a specific injury on November 9, 1998, resulting in 2% permanent disability. The Board treated the later vacating order in ADJ3206055 as relating back to an earlier order in ADJ4323884.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardVacating OrderReinstatementPermanent DisabilitySpecific InjuryLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundAdministrative Law Judge
References
2
Case No. ADJ7407927; ADJ7407928
Regular
Mar 12, 2013

JOSE PEDRO SOTO vs. MARATHON INDUSTRIES, INC., HARTFORD INSURANCE CO. OF THE MIDWEST

This case involves defendant Marathon Industries' petitions to rescind orders that reinstated dismissed liens. The WCJ had rescinded the dismissals, finding lien activation fees were paid timely or were not required. However, the Appeals Board ruled that the lien claimants failed to prove prior timely payment of activation fees as required by statute and regulations. Therefore, the Board granted the petitions, rescinded the reinstatement orders, and reinstated the original orders dismissing the liens with prejudice.

WCABRemovalPetition for RemovalLien DismissalLien Activation FeeLabor Code Section 4903.06(a)(4)WCAB Rule 10859Administrative Director Rule 10208(a)EAMSPrior Timely Payment
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Drew-King ex rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Deep Distributors of Greater NY, Inc.

This case involves a motion filed by Kathy Drew-King, acting Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), against Deep Distributors of Greater NY, Inc., seeking to hold the latter in civil contempt. The NLRB alleged that Deep Distributors failed to comply with a July 5, 2016 Injunctive Order, which mandated the reinstatement of five discharged employees who were terminated for engaging in protected union activities and filing a Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuit. The NLRB claimed Deep Distributors imposed unlawful conditions on reinstatement, such as requiring new job applications and immigration status re-verification. Deep Distributors denied these allegations, asserting compliance with the order. While the contempt motion was pending, the NLRB issued a final administrative decision on June 20, 2017, finding Deep Distributors in violation of the NLRA, which rendered the coercive aspects of the contempt petition moot. However, the NLRB still sought compensatory relief for damages. The Court denied the NLRB's motion for civil contempt, citing a "fair ground of doubt as to the wrongfulness" of Deep Distributors' conduct due to conflicting accounts from both parties regarding the reinstatement process.

Civil ContemptLabor LawNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Unfair Labor PracticesReinstatementInjunctive ReliefEmployer-Employee RelationsDischarged EmployeesUnion ActivitiesFair Labor Standards Act
References
21
Case No. Appeal No. 61254
Regular Panel Decision

Wehmeyer v. Port Authority

Plaintiff, an employee, suffered multiple injuries, including fractured ribs and a contusion of the left kidney, after falling from a ladder onto a counter in the Eastern Airlines terminal. The initial Supreme Court order granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court modified this order, reinstating the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Eastern Airlines and Port Authority due to unresolved factual issues regarding safe equipment provision. However, claims against New York Helicopter and ASI were dismissed, as they lacked sufficient control over the plaintiff's work to incur liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Motions for reargument were partially granted, while motions for leave to appeal were denied.

Labor LawLadder FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewElevation-Related RiskEmployer LiabilityOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityWorkplace SafetyPersonal Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2001

Crespo v. Triad, Inc.

Plaintiff, a painter employed by Bond, was injured while working on the fifth floor of the Owners' premises, which was subleased to Poppe Tyson by Bozell, during renovations managed by Triad. The injury occurred when the plaintiff fell from a scaffold that lacked safety railings, leading to a complaint alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against various parties including the Owners, Bozell, Poppe Tyson, and Triad. The Supreme Court's order involved multiple rulings, including dismissals, grants of partial summary judgment on liability, and denials of indemnification claims. The appellate court subsequently modified the order, denying plaintiff's partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 241 (6) liability, reinstating claims against Triad, granting summary judgment to Bond on common-law indemnification, and addressing breach of contract claims related to insurance procurement.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Scaffold SafetyConstruction AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentIndemnificationBreach of ContractProcure Insurance
References
14
Case No. ADJ3688325 (SBR 0323875) ADJ1445844 (SBR 0323876) ADJ4577184 (SBR 0323877)
Regular
Sep 22, 2009

MARIA FUENTES vs. WAKEFIELD ENGINEERING, AIG COSTA MESA, LUMBERMEN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY CO.

This case involves a defendant seeking reconsideration of an order that reinstated a prior workers' compensation award. The defendant argued the order erroneously reinstated the award after it was dismissed from one of the underlying cases and was not given due process. The Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petition, finding the order at issue was not a final order and thus not subject to review under Labor Code section 5900. Furthermore, the Board denied a petition for removal, concluding the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, as it remains liable under the joint award and can seek contribution from another insurer.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Setting Aside Findings and AwardVocational Rehabilitation BenefitsQualified Injured WorkerSpecific InjuryCumulative TraumaInsurance CoverageParty Defendant
References
7
Case No. ADJ6532010
Regular
Oct 20, 2010

JONI LITTLE vs. ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP INC.

The defendant sought reconsideration of an order that reinstated a lien claimant's dismissed lien, arguing the lien claimant's petition was untimely. The Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petition, finding the order reinstating the lien was not a final order as it did not substantively determine liability. The Board also denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no showing of irreparable harm or prejudice justifying this extraordinary remedy. The lien claimant will still need to prove their case on the merits, and the defendant can present their arguments at further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardreconsiderationremovallien claimantadministrative law judgeCompromise and ReleaseNotice of Intentrescinded orderfinal ordersubstantive right
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2009

Tipaldo v. Lynn

The plaintiff, a former Acting Assistant Commissioner for Planning with the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), was demoted in retaliation for reporting a superior's violation of bidding rules. Following a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff $175,000 in back pay but denied interest and reinstatement. This appellate court modified the lower court's order, finding that the back pay award should be recalculated based on the plaintiff's expert testimony, which estimated lost earnings at $388,243 plus 9% statutory interest. The court also ruled that prejudgment interest should have been awarded, citing Civil Service Law § 75-b and its link to Labor Law § 740, which aims to make whistleblowers "whole." Furthermore, the appellate court ordered the defendants to reinstate the plaintiff to his former or an equivalent position, affirming the order otherwise.

Retaliatory personnel actionWhistleblower protectionBack pay awardPrejudgment interestReinstatementCivil Service LawLabor LawDamages calculationEmployment discriminationPublic employee
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 24,448 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