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. ADJ7776408
Regular
Apr 28, 2014

RONALD FAULKNER vs. CAT CLINIC, FIREMANS FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Ronald Faulkner's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not verified, violating Labor Code section 5902. The WCAB adopted the findings of the administrative law judge, stating that the petition would have been denied on its merits even if properly verified. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed based on the procedural defect of lack of verification.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code section 5902DismissedWCJ Report and RecommendationAdopt and IncorporateDeny on the MeritsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeApplicant
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ronald M.

The Erie County Department of Social Services (DSS) obtained temporary custody of Ronald M., Jr. based on a neglect petition alleging the mother's mental illness and substance abuse, and a prior neglect adjudication for an older sibling. At trial, the evidence from a child protective worker, a psychiatrist, and a nurse was deemed insufficient to prove current neglect. The Family Court granted the respondents' motions to dismiss. On appeal, DSS solely relied on the principle that prior neglect of one child is admissible to prove neglect of another, but the appellate court found this insufficient to sustain a neglect finding given the 16-month gap since the prior order and a lack of proof of non-compliance or new concerning behavior by the parents. The order dismissing the neglect petition was unanimously affirmed.

Child NeglectFamily LawAppellate CourtSufficiency of EvidencePrior AdjudicationParental FitnessChild Protective ServicesDomestic ViolenceMental Health IssuesSubstance Abuse History
References
2
Case No. CA 10-02491
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2012

LUCAS, RONALD, MTR. OF

This case involves an appeal from a judgment confirming two arbitration awards. The first award found that the respondents violated a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by disregarding a binding past practice where the most senior caulker supervisor was offered the right of first refusal for an acting-time position. The second award directed the respondents to pay Donald Mackowiak $54,282.71 and Ronald French $1,094.99 in back pay and lost overtime for their failure to provide this right. The respondents argued on appeal that the awards violated Civil Service Law §§ 61(2) and 64(2), were against public policy, speculative, irrational, and exceeded the arbitrator's power. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, holding that the awards did not violate the Civil Service Law, as temporary appointments under § 64(2) do not require emergency situations. The court also found no public policy violation, citing an employer's ability to limit its discretion by agreement or established past practice, especially when safety is not a concern. The damages were deemed non-speculative, and the awards were found to be rational and within the arbitrator's authority, supported by evidence of a past practice.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementCivil Service LawPublic Policy ChallengeWaiver of DiscretionPast Practice DoctrineActing-Time PositionRight of First RefusalDamages for Lost WagesAppellate Division
References
11
Case No. ADJ8841436
Regular
Jul 11, 2014

RONALD LAWRENCE vs. JOHN MUIR HEALTH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Ronald Lawrence's petition for reconsideration of the denial of his back injury claim. The Workers' Compensation Judge found Lawrence not credible, citing inconsistencies in his account of the injury. The medical records were ambiguous and the judge gave great weight to his credibility determination, adopting the judge's reasoning for the denial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJCredibilityBurden of ProofDisputed InjuryTestimonial EvidenceMedical RecordsLabor CodeAdmissibility of Evidence
References
1
Case No. CV-23-0674
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Ronald Winkelman

Ronald Winkelman, a claimant in a workers' compensation case, sustained work-related injuries in 2000 and 2018. Following the 2018 injury, he received treatment and was assessed with a temporary partial disability, leading to lifting restrictions. After his employer could not accommodate these restrictions and terminated him, Winkelman secured per diem employment. The employer and its carrier alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, claiming Winkelman made false statements regarding his work activities while receiving benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board found no such violation, concluding that Winkelman's activities, including assisting his spouse, did not exceed his medical restrictions. The Board also determined that Winkelman was entitled to a reduced earnings award, finding he demonstrated attachment to the labor market. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and noting the Board's role as the sole arbiter of witness credibility.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraud AllegationReduced Earnings AwardTemporary Partial DisabilityIndependent Medical ExaminationBoard Decision AffirmationWitness CredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLabor Market Attachment
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 1988

In re James P.

This case involves a child protective petition filed against Ronald J. and Vivian P. concerning three children: James P., Ronald J., Jr., and Shaila J. The Family Court in New York County initially dismissed the petition. However, the appellate court reversed this dismissal, reinstating the petition and making new findings. Specifically, it found that James P. is an abused child by Ronald J., and James P., Ronald J., Jr., and Shaila J. are neglected children by Vivian P. The matter was remanded for a dispositional hearing before a different judge. The decision highlights the importance of corroborating out-of-court statements made by children regarding abuse or neglect, supported by expert testimony.

child protective petitionchild abusechild neglectsexual abusefamily courtappellate reviewcredibility of witnessesexpert testimonycorroborationremand
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of the Mason Tenders, District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund & Training Program Fund v. Faulkner

Plaintiffs, comprised of Trustees of Mason Tenders District Council Welfare, Pension, Annuity, and Training Program Funds, and the Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York, initiated legal action against Thomas Faulkner d/b/a American Demolition and Thomas Faulkner individually. The suit, filed under ERISA and the Taft-Hartley Act, alleged the defendants failed to allow an audit of their records and did not make required contributions to the plaintiff funds as stipulated by a collective bargaining agreement. Following a default judgment, Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox issued a Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs objected to portions of this report, specifically regarding Faulkner's personal liability and the awarded attorneys' fees. Upon de novo review, District Judge Holwell modified the Report, determining that Faulkner was personally liable for the business's debts and awarding the full amount of attorneys' fees requested by the plaintiffs, totaling $6,588.75.

ERISATaft-Hartley ActEmployee BenefitsPension FundsWelfare FundsCollective BargainingAudit DisputesDefault JudgmentPersonal LiabilitySole Proprietorship
References
18
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01410 [180 AD3d 1259]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2020

Matter of Isabella I. (Ronald I.)

The father appealed two Family Court orders concerning child abuse and custody modification. The Appellate Division affirmed the finding that the child was abused by the father, citing consistent out-of-court statements from the child, corroborated by expert testimony from a social worker and observable changes in the child's behavior. The court also noted a negative inference could be drawn from the father's failure to appear for DNA testing he requested. Additionally, the Appellate Division upheld the custody order, granting the mother sole legal and physical custody, determining that the abuse finding constituted a significant change in circumstances warranting a custody modification in the child's best interests. The court found no violation of the father's rights despite his absence at the custody hearing, as his counsel was present and presented arguments.

Child AbuseChild NeglectCustody ModificationSexual Abuse AllegationsExpert Witness TestimonyCorroborating EvidenceFamily Court AppealsParental Rights SuspensionBest Interests StandardAppellate Division
References
14
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05607 [198 AD3d 843]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2021

Walsh v. Knudsen

Michael A. Walsh, a police officer, sued fellow officers Ronald Knudsen and John Whalen, and the Incorporated Village of Larchmont, for personal injuries following a taser discharge. The Supreme Court granted Walsh leave to serve a late notice of claim and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, also allowing Walsh to amend his complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed these orders. The court found Walsh's claim meritless due to the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law for co-employee negligence, and any intentional tort claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim was denied, the motion to dismiss was granted, and the cross-motion to amend the complaint was denied.

Personal InjuryPolice OfficerTaser IncidentLate Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyIntentional TortStatute of LimitationsAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02787 [138 AD3d 797]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2016

Mileski v. MSC Indus. Direct Co., Inc.

Drena Mileski, as administratrix of Ronald P. Mileski's estate, initiated a wrongful death action following Ronald's death from injuries sustained operating a lathe machine. The plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to include Burns Real Estate, LLC, Nijon Tool Co., Inc., Island Machine Supply Corp., and John Raymond Burns as additional defendants, relying on the relation-back doctrine. The Supreme Court granted this amendment. However, the Appellate Division reversed, ruling that the relation-back doctrine was inapplicable. The court reasoned that if the new defendants were united in interest with the employer, they would share the employer's immunity under the Workers' Compensation Law, rendering the claims time-barred.

Wrongful DeathLathe AccidentRelation-Back DoctrineStatute of LimitationsAmended ComplaintVicarious LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ImmunityAppellate ProcedureTimeliness of AppealUnity of Interest
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 172 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