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. 09 Civ. 4390 (PKC)
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2010

Aiello v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Richard Aiello, a civilian contractor, sued Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc. for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in a latrine at Camp Shield, a forward operating base in Iraq. Aiello alleged negligent construction, renovation, repair, and/or maintenance of the facility. Defendant Kellogg moved for summary judgment, asserting defenses including the political question doctrine and federal preemption under the combatant activities exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The District Court found the political question doctrine inapplicable but granted summary judgment for Kellogg, holding that tort claims against government contractors integrated into military combatant activities in a war zone are preempted. The court reasoned that the maintenance of essential life-support facilities at an active forward operating base constituted combatant activity, and imposing state tort liability would significantly conflict with unique federal interests.

Military Contractor LiabilityFederal PreemptionCombatant Activities ExceptionFederal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)Political Question DoctrineSummary JudgmentNegligenceIraq War OperationsCamp ShieldLogistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP)
References
49
Case No. ADJ900432 (SAC 0323091)
Regular
Dec 30, 2011

MARLENE COPUS vs. NORTH SACRAMENTO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involves a dispute over the necessity of spinal surgery for an applicant who sustained a cumulative trauma injury to her neck and back. While the applicant's treating physician recommended surgery, a second opinion physician disagreed, citing a lack of nerve root compression. The Appeals Board found that the medical evidence was insufficient to determine the necessity of surgery, particularly in light of ACOEM Practice Guidelines which generally recommend against surgery without nerve root compression. Therefore, the Board rescinded the prior award and remanded the case to appoint an independent physician to evaluate the applicant and determine the reasonableness and necessity of the proposed surgery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMarlene CopusNorth Sacramento Elementary School Districtcumulative traumaspinal surgerynerve root impingementcervical stenosisDr. OrisekDr. GregoriusACOEM Practice Guidelines
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Root v. Sanger

Plaintiff Lawrence B. Root was injured in a vehicle collision while being driven to his office by coemployee Daniel A. Sanger, on a private roadway owned by Rotterdam Ventures, Inc. The collision involved another vehicle driven by coemployee Matthew S. Passamonte. The accident occurred 15 minutes after the workday had ended. Defendants Sanger and Passamonte moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law §29 (6), as they were acting within the scope of their employment. The Supreme Court denied their motion and granted plaintiff's cross-motion to strike this affirmative defense. The appellate court affirmed, holding that travel to and from work is not activity 'in the course of employment' and the defendants were rendering personal favors, not employer services, at the time of the accident. Therefore, the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law did not apply.

Vehicle AccidentCoemployee LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityScope of EmploymentTravel to/from WorkPersonal FavorsSummary JudgmentNegligenceAppellate ReviewAffirmative Defense
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Root v. County of Onondaga

Howard Root was injured when an underground concrete vault he was working in was suddenly inundated with water, trapping him. Plaintiffs sued defendants for alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' motions to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but denied dismissal for §§ 200 and 241 (6). On appeal, the order was modified. The court ruled that Labor Law § 240 (1) was not applicable as the injury was not due to a fall from an elevated surface or being struck by a falling object. Furthermore, defendants were found to have no ownership interest in the property, and the general contractor's scope of work did not include the accident. Subcontractors also lacked authority to supervise or control the work. Consequently, the defendants were not liable under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), leading to the dismissal of the entire complaint.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryFalling Worker TestNondelegable Duty
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2007

Schnetzler v. Astrue

Raymond Schnetzler challenged the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability benefits, alleging an inability to work due to a back injury from June 1991 to September 1996. After multiple administrative denials, including by ALJs Katherine C. Edgell and Marilyn Hoppenfeld, Schnetzler sought judicial review. The District Court found that the ALJ failed to adequately justify discounting the opinions of Schnetzler's treating physicians and improperly substituted her judgment for medical experts regarding nerve root involvement. Consequently, the court granted Schnetzler's motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner's motion, and remanded the case for further consideration.

Social Security DisabilityDisability BenefitsTreating Physician RuleMedical Expert TestimonyALJ Decision ReviewRemand for ReconsiderationLumbar Sprain/StrainHerniated DiscSpinal StenosisResidual Functional Capacity
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meyers v. Astrue

Plaintiff Linda Meyers sought judicial review of a denial of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio recommended granting the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying the defendant's, remanding the case for benefits calculation. District Judge Richard J. Arcara adopted this recommendation after a de novo review. The court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by concluding the plaintiff was not disabled from March 2004 through March 2006, specifically by failing to properly apply the treating physician rule to Dr. Lewis's opinion, which consistently described the plaintiff as totally disabled due to cervical disc disease and nerve root compression.

Social Security DisabilitySupplemental Security IncomeDisability Benefits ReviewTreating Physician RuleAdministrative Law Judge ErrorResidual Functional CapacityCervical Spine DisorderNerve Root CompressionVocational ExpertSedentary Work Limitations
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2003

Claim of Paradise v. Goulds Pump

In March 1993, the claimant suffered a cervical and thoracic spine strain/sprain while lifting a heavy carton at work. Although he initially recovered, he later developed recurring neck pain and numbness in his left hand. Neurosurgeon Webster Pilcher diagnosed nerve root compression at C5 and C6, attributing it to the 1993 work-related injury and recommending surgery. The employer's workers’ compensation carrier declined coverage. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently found a causal relationship between the injury and the claimant's current condition, authorizing the surgery. The employer and carrier appealed, contending that the Board's finding was based on speculative medical opinion. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that Pilcher's opinion had a rational basis and was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationNerve Root CompressionCervical SpineThoracic SpineCausationMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceNeurosurgeonSpinal InjuryAppeal
References
2
Case No. ADJ3744023
Regular
May 15, 2009

JOSEPH CRABTREE vs. MITCHELL BERMAN CABINET MAKER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of an award finding an industrial injury to the applicant's abdomen/groin (hernia) and a resulting peripheral nerve injury causing 24% permanent disability. The defendant argued the peripheral nerve injury was not supported and the disability rating was incorrect due to misapplication of the AMA Guides. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report and finding that the medical evidence supported the peripheral nerve injury and the AMA Guides were correctly applied. The Board found the agreed medical evaluator's conclusions were well-reasoned and supported by the evidence.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryHerniaPeripheral Nerve InjuryPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)AMA GuidesPetition for ReconsiderationMedical EvidenceWCJ
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 1991

Davies v. Contel of New York, Inc.

Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss her complaint. She alleged that the defendant, through its independent contractor E. E. Root & Sons, Inc., negligently conducted excavation work near her property, causing her to trip and suffer a knee injury. The Supreme Court had dismissed the complaint, ruling that E. E. Root & Sons, Inc. was an independent contractor and, therefore, the defendant was not liable for its actions. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that there was no rational basis for a jury to find the defendant liable on the independent contractor issue. It found insufficient evidence that the defendant controlled Root's work or that the cable installation was inherently dangerous.

Independent Contractor LiabilityVicarious LiabilityNegligenceDirected VerdictAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentControl TestInherently Dangerous WorkAffirmed Judgment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 1992

Paul v. Haley

Emma Lee Paul sued Alex Haley, Doubleday Publishing Company, and American Broadcasting Companies (ABC) for the alleged misappropriation of novel ideas from her unpublished autobiography, The Bold Truth, claiming they were used in Haley's book Roots and its televised adaptations. After initial federal copyright claims were dismissed, Paul filed a state action in Nassau County Supreme Court for unfair competition and breach of implied contract, both predicated on "idea theft." The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that Paul's claimed "ideas" lacked the requisite novelty and originality for protection under New York law, and therefore could not be misappropriated. The court also found compelling evidence that Roots was independently conceived by Haley before Paul submitted her manuscript to Doubleday. The complaint against all defendants was dismissed.

Intellectual PropertyIdea TheftCopyright LawNovelty RequirementSummary JudgmentUnfair CompetitionImplied ContractLiterary WorksIndependent CreationPreemption
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 43 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