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

Kirkup v. American International Adjustment Co.

The plaintiff, a bricklayer, sustained a serious back injury and subsequently sued his employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier and its employees, alleging improper denial of benefits, lack of medical treatment, and breach of good faith. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the Workers’ Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy, but the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, denied their motion. On appeal, the order was reversed, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted. The appellate court found the Workers’ Compensation Law to be the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional harm.

Workers' Compensation LawBreach of Insurance ContractIntentional Infliction of Emotional HarmExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier LiabilityWork-Related InjuryMedical BenefitsSanctions
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peck v. Montefiore Medical Center

Dr. Naomi Peck, a third-year medical resident at Montefiore Medical Center, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Montefiore's Department of Radiology from proceeding with an ad hoc committee review that could lead to her discharge. Peck alleged racial discrimination as the motive behind the proposed adverse action. The District Court denied the application, finding that Peck failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of hardships did not tip in her favor. The court noted that Montefiore's internal review process, including a formal hearing, provided sufficient due process and that potential future damages were reparable by monetary compensation.

Preliminary InjunctionEmployment LawRacial DiscriminationTitle VIIDue ProcessIrreparable HarmBalance of HardshipsResidency ProgramMedical ResidentAd Hoc Committee Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2015

Matter of Ruth Joanna O.O. (Melissa O.)

Justice Gesmer dissents from the affirmation of a Family Court order finding Melissa O. neglected her child. The dissent argues that the Family Court lacked a basis for its neglect finding, as there was no evidence that the mother's conduct impaired or threatened her child's condition. Furthermore, it asserts that the findings regarding the mother's failure to take medication or engage in mental health services were unsupported by admissible evidence. Gesmer, J. emphasizes that proof of mental illness alone is insufficient for a neglect finding without a causal link to actual or potential harm to the child. The dissent concludes that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the mother's mental illness resulted in a failure to provide a minimum degree of care or that the child was harmed or at imminent risk of harm.

Child Protective ProceedingNeglect FindingParental Mental IllnessSufficiency of EvidenceImminent Risk of HarmMinimum Degree of CareFamily Court ActDissenting OpinionAdmissibility of EvidenceCausal Connection
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeLury v. City of New York

Justice Murphy dissents from a decision that denied a motion to vacate a stay, arguing that vacating the stay is crucial to maintain the status quo and prevent irreparable harm to the plaintiffs. The dissent highlights that the City is protected by a $1,000,000 bond, making further delay harmless to the city, while immediate firings could render an expedited appeal moot. The core issue revolves around a contractual clause regarding guaranteed two-year employment for sanitation workers in exchange for waiving rights under Labor Law § 220, which the City argues is invalid under its Administrative Code, allowing for dismissals due to lack of work. Murphy also raises a factual issue regarding whether the City can fire permanent employees while retaining provisional ones. The dissent concludes that the potential irreparable harm to plaintiffs' benefits outweighs the minimal harm to the City, advocating for vacating the stay and directing an expedited appeal or trial.

Stay MotionIrreparable HarmStatus QuoExpedited AppealMootnessSanitation WorkersContractual DisputeGuaranteed EmploymentWaiver of RightsPrevailing Wage
References
1
Case No. ADJ10650148, ADJ10650276
Regular
Sep 25, 2017

MEIMY AWAD vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/USC MEDICAL CENTER, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted, requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate such harm or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationWCJ reportextraordinary remedyADJ10650148ADJ10650276Meimy Awad
References
2
Case No. ADJ11886225
Regular
Sep 27, 2019

KATHERINE RIGGINS vs. IRVINE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CMS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Petition for Removal filed by Katherine Riggins. The WCAB determined that removal is an extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted, requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Since the petitioner did not demonstrate such harm, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWCJ ReportSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdverse DecisionExtraordinary RemedyCortéz v. WCABKleemann v. WCAB
References
2
Case No. ADJ9116799
Regular
Nov 01, 2016

JOHN FLOYD vs. CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY (BHHC) for FLOYD, SKEREN & KELLY, LLP et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal in this case. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, and the Board only grants it when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denial, and reconsideration would be inadequate. In this instance, the Board found no persuasive evidence of such prejudice or harm, adopting the WCJ's reasoning for denial. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judgeextraordinary remedyCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY
References
2
Case No. ADJ10046418, ADJ10046374, ADJ10046432, ADJ10795308
Regular
Sep 15, 2017

JUAN DELGADO vs. DESERT CONCEPTS MAINTENANCE, PSI, CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS NETWORK, AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. While the Board found the petition to be timely filed, removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant failed to demonstrate such harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate. Therefore, the Board denied the petition based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJtimelyextraordinary remedysubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadequate remedydenial of removal
References
2
Case No. ADJ11675915
Regular
Sep 25, 2019

AMBER BETTINCOURT vs. BETHANY HOME SOCIETY OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a Petition for Removal in this case. Removal is an extraordinary remedy that requires a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate such harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The WCJ's decision not to bifurcate the statute of limitations issue was a proper exercise of judicial discretion.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadequate remedyjudicial discretionbifurcationstatute of limitations
References
2
Case No. ADJ9709728, ADJ9302807
Regular
Apr 30, 2018

ELIZABETH HUYNH vs. BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, Administered By AIG

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Elizabeth Huynh. The Board denied the petition because removal is an extraordinary remedy that requires a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Huynh failed to demonstrate how she would suffer such harm if removal was not granted, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationextraordinary remedyadministrative law judgeADJ9709728ADJ9302807
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,871 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