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. ADJ10065069
Regular
May 16, 2018

MARCIA FARRAR vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, legally uninsured, administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) finding of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the applicant's right upper extremity. Defendant argued that no evidence supported injury to other alleged body parts and that the WCJ should have made findings on those parts instead of deferring the issue. The WCAB denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision to limit the trial to the threshold issue of right upper extremity injury AOE/COE. The WCAB found Dr. Amster's opinion constituted substantial evidence for the right upper extremity injury and that the WCJ acted within their authority by deferring other issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAOE/COEQualified Medical ExaminerReconsiderationCumulative TraumaRepetitive Strain InjuryPreexisting ConditionAggravationContributing CauseMandatory Settlement Conference
References
7
Case No. ADJ5668010
Regular
Jan 29, 2016

RAGHBIR MAHIL vs. FOSTER FARMS

This case concerns applicant Raghbir Mahil's appeal of a WCJ's decision regarding his 2002 industrial injury. The WCJ found injury to the neck and psyche, awarding 42% permanent disability based on the AMA Guides and denying injury to the right upper extremity and headaches. Applicant argued for total permanent disability, no psychiatric apportionment, and the application of the 1997 rating schedule. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision, returning the matter for re-rating permanent disability under the 1997 Schedule due to the timing of temporary disability payments. The Board otherwise affirmed the WCJ's findings, including no injury to the right upper extremity or headaches, and the need for neck treatment only.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRaghbir MahilFoster FarmsOpinion Decision After ReconsiderationFindings and Awardadmitted industrial injuryneck injurypsyche injurypermanent disabilityAMA Guides
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Lora Abbott Seabury, an employee at a correctional facility, filed a complaint in 2010 alleging sexual harassment by male coworkers, creating a hostile work environment. An Administrative Law Judge found in her favor, recommending substantial economic and non-economic damages. The Commissioner of Human Rights adjusted the economic damages but adopted the recommendations. The correctional facility (petitioner) sought to annul the determination, while Seabury sought modification and confirmation. The Court upheld the finding of a hostile work environment due to gender-based harassment, crediting Seabury's testimony about daily harassment, supervisors' inaction, and gender-biased statements. The Court also affirmed the $300,000 award for noneconomic injuries, finding it supported by evidence of severe psychological trauma, including PTSD and major depressive disorder. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Seabury's award should not be offset by workers' compensation benefits and that pension losses must be compensated, remitting the matter to determine those damages.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentGender DiscriminationAdministrative ReviewDamages AwardEconomic DamagesNoneconomic DamagesWorkers' Compensation OffsetPension BenefitsDuty to Mitigate
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 1983

Schuck v. State Division of Human Rights

Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, petitioned for annulment of an order by the Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a determination by the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The Commissioner found that Local 3 discriminated against minority trainees by shunting them into a slower 'M' program, denying them the 'MIJ' shortcut to 'A' journeyman status, and providing an inferior training curriculum compared to regular apprentices, thus violating the Human Rights Law. The Commissioner issued cease and desist orders and specific directives regarding training and advancement, including a conditional provision for automatic 'A' journeyman status without examination. The Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, upon judicial review, modified the order by deleting the directive that granted full 'A' journeyman status without further examination. Instead, the court mandated that affected individuals be afforded the opportunity to take the next scheduled 'A' examination, with appropriate preparatory instruction provided if needed. The rest of the Commissioner's order and determination were confirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMinority Training ProgramApprenticeshipJourneyman StatusLabor UnionAffirmative ActionNew YorkVocational TrainingEqual Opportunity
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1981

MATTER OF MOHAWK FINISHING PRODS., INC. v. State Div. of Human Rights

This dissenting opinion concerns Michele Cushing, an employee of Mohawk Finishing Products Corporation, who was terminated after raising concerns about perceived sex discrimination, although actual discrimination was not proven. The State Division of Human Rights initially granted her relief for retaliation, which was affirmed by the Human Rights Appeal Board. However, the Appellate Division annulled and remitted the decision, distinguishing between protective clauses in the Human Rights Law. Justice Fuchsberg argues that the anti-retaliation provision should protect employees who reasonably believe a practice is discriminatory, even if later found lawful. He proposes reversing the Appellate Division's order and remitting the case to the State Division of Human Rights for a specific finding on the reasonableness of Ms. Cushing’s belief.

Anti-retaliationHuman Rights LawSex DiscriminationReasonable BeliefEmployment LawDissenting OpinionAdministrative ReviewWorkplace RetaliationEmployee RightsJudicial Interpretation
References
11
Case No. ADJ6581535
Regular
Nov 15, 2017

Angel Mendez vs. Maple Dairy, Zenith Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Angel Mendez's petition for reconsideration. Mendez sought a finding of $100\%$ permanent disability, arguing total loss of use of his dominant right upper extremity. The Board affirmed the WCJ's prior award of $75\%$ permanent disability, finding no presumption of total disability for the loss of use of only one hand. The evidence did not support a finding of total loss of use of the upper extremity.

Petition for ReconsiderationPermanent Disability ApportionmentVocational EvidenceDominant Upper ExtremityLoss of UsePresumption of Permanent Total DisabilityLabor Code Section 4662(a)(2)Substantial EvidenceLeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Dairy Worker
References
1
Case No. MON 0349447
Regular
Feb 21, 2008

VERONICA LOPEZ-ROMERO vs. KOOSHAREM CORPORATION dba SELECT REMEDY, ESIS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's request to overturn a finding that she should be treated within the employer's Medical Provider Network. The Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, amending the original award to specify that the applicant sustained industrial injury only to her right major upper extremity and low back, while acknowledging her claims of injury to other body parts. The amended award affirmed the original decision in all other respects.

WCABReconsiderationMedical Provider Network (MPN)Industrial InjuryFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Director RuleNotice RequirementsEmployee HandbookRight Major Upper Extremity
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Bank Note Co. v. State Division of Human Rights

This case concerns a petitioner challenging a determination by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which had affirmed a decision from the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The original finding stated that the petitioner discriminated against Lorraine Voigt and other female employees regarding pregnancy-related disability benefits. The court annulled the board's determination, concluding there was no substantial evidence to support the finding of discrimination. The petitioner had denied Ms. Voigt's claim as untimely according to section 217 of the Disability Benefits Law. The court found that the Human Rights Law does not compel an employer to pay benefits for pregnancy-related disability if the employer would not pay similar disability claims for male employees under the same timeliness rules, which the petitioner consistently applied.

Pregnancy DiscriminationDisability Benefits LawHuman Rights LawTimeliness of ClaimSex DiscriminationEqual TreatmentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewAnnulmentSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 5,270 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