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. ADJ8926570
Regular
Apr 25, 2016

SANDRA KOZUCH vs. AMERICAN GUARD SERVICES, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Sandra Kozuch that has been denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in their report. Therefore, the WCAB's order formally denies Kozuch's request for reconsideration of a prior decision.

ADJ8926570KIZERMULLEN FILIPPISANDRA KOZUCHAMERICAN GUARD SERVICESINTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICESWORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDENIEDWCJ REPORT
References
0
Case No. 30 AD3d 876
Regular Panel Decision

Sandra M. v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center

The plaintiffs, Sandra M. and her husband, appealed a Supreme Court order granting summary judgment to St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center, dismissing their complaint. Sandra M. was allegedly sexually assaulted by a nursing assistant, Ricardo Cortez, supplied by United Staffing System, Inc., while on suicide watch at the Hospital. The plaintiffs sued the Hospital, United, and Cortez, alleging the Hospital was negligent in its suicide watch policies and its failure to independently evaluate staff provided by United. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order and affirmed the judgment dismissing the complaint against the Hospital. The court found the Hospital was not vicariously liable for Cortez's personal tortious acts and had no duty to independently screen employees supplied by United, as it had no prior knowledge of Cortez's propensity for misconduct.

Personal InjurySexual AssaultNegligenceHospital LiabilityVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorNegligent HiringSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSuicide Watch
References
20
Case No. ADJ1885780
Regular
Jun 02, 2010

SANDRA SHERMAN, SANDRA SMITH vs. GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY, BROADSPIRE

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Applicant Sandra Sherman (also known as Sandra Smith) against Graybar Electric Company and BroadsPIRE. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. Even if it had been verified, the WCAB would have denied the petition on its merits, adopting the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code section 5902DismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJReport and RecommendationDeny on the meritsSmith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Lucena v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. 2016-1509 OR CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2018

People v. Nagler (Sandra)

Sandra Nagler appealed six judgments from the Justice Court of the Town of Wallkill, Orange County, primarily challenging her conviction for common-law driving while intoxicated (DWI). Following a nonjury trial, she was found guilty based on testimony from Trooper Brad Natalizio, who responded to an accident where Nagler admitted to falling asleep after consuming alcohol. The Justice Court initially sentenced Nagler to 45 days incarceration and three years' probation for the DWI conviction. On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, dismissed the appeals for other traffic infractions as abandoned. While upholding the legal sufficiency of the evidence for the DWI conviction, the Appellate Term found the 45-day jail sentence excessive, considering Nagler's community involvement and lack of prior criminal history. Consequently, the court modified the sentence, reducing the term of incarceration to time served while affirming the conviction.

Driving While IntoxicatedDUIDWIVehicle and Traffic LawAppellate ReviewSentence ModificationExcessive SentenceCommon-law DWIOrange CountyTown of Wallkill
References
23
Case No. 529802
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Sandra Anthony

Claimant Sandra Anthony injured her right wrist while taping drywall at a construction site and subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, naming AB Hill Enterprises, LLC as her employer. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, determining an employer-employee relationship existed and holding Dani's Builders, the general contractor, responsible for awards due to AB Hill's lack of coverage, also imposing a $5,000 penalty on AB Hill. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. AB Hill appealed, arguing it was not a "contractor" under the Construction Industry Fair Play Act and thus not obligated to maintain workers' compensation insurance. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported AB Hill's classification as a contractor and employer under the Act, and upheld the penalty.

construction industryworkers' compensation lawemployer-employee relationshipindependent contractor classificationstatutory presumptionConstruction Industry Fair Play Actsubcontractor liabilitypenalty assessmentinsurance requirementsAppellate Division decision
References
8
Case No. No. 14
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2020

The Matter of the Claim of Sandra L. O’Donnell v. Erie County

Claimant Sandra L. O’Donnell, an employee of Erie County, received a Workers’ Compensation Board award for loss of post-accident earnings due to a permanent partial disability. Employer Erie County and its carrier challenged this, arguing O’Donnell failed to show efforts to find work. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially upheld the award, applying a discretionary inference from Matter of Zamora v New York Neurologic Assoc., but later admitted a departure from its administrative precedent. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision, remitting the case. The Court clarified that while the 2017 amendment to WCL § 15 (3) (w) eliminated post-classification labor market attachment obligations, it did not alter pre-classification requirements. The matter is remanded for the Board to explain its rationale and any departure from its established precedent.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityLabor Market AttachmentInvoluntary RetirementAdministrative PrecedentStatutory InterpretationRemandNew York Court of AppealsWCL Section 15(3)(w)
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2006

In re Sandra

This petition concerns Sandra, as guardian of her uncle Holland, seeking court authorization to make gifts from his property to his two living sisters, Olive and Ruth. The initial request was for $40,000 gifts to three sisters, which was amended to $60,000 each for two sisters. A key aspect of the petition was a request for the authorization order to be made nunc pro tunc to September 13, 2005, to circumvent new Medicaid look-back period laws effective February 8, 2006. The court, applying the doctrine of substituted judgment and considering Holland's financial needs and the factors in Mental Hygiene Law § 81.21 (d), denied the nunc pro tunc request, stating it could not backdate a non-existent fact. However, the court did authorize Sandra to transfer a reduced sum of $30,000 each to Olive and Ruth, believing this amount would not unduly jeopardize Holland's ability to cover his expenses during the Medicaid look-back period.

GuardianshipSubstituted JudgmentMedicaid PlanningGift AuthorizationIncapacitated PersonNunc Pro TuncMedicaid Look-back PeriodElder LawEstate PlanningSocial Services Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olejniczak v. EI Du Pont De Nemours and Co.

Gerald P. Olejniczak and his wife, Sandra Olejniczak, sued E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in federal court, based on diversity jurisdiction, seeking to recover for injuries Olejniczak allegedly sustained from a slip and fall at DuPont's Tonawanda plant in January 1994. The non-jury trial focused on Olejniczak's credibility, weather conditions, and DuPont's duty of care. The District Court found Olejniczak's testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies and prior false statements under oath. The court concluded that DuPont did not breach its duty, citing the 'storm in progress' doctrine and its reasonable snow removal practices, particularly given the severe weather. Furthermore, Olejniczak failed to prove proximate causation or that DuPont had sufficient notice of a dangerous condition. Consequently, judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, dismissing both Olejniczak's negligence claim and Sandra Olejniczak's derivative loss of consortium claim.

NegligenceSlip and FallPremises LiabilityDuty of CareStorm in Progress DoctrineCredibility AssessmentProximate CausationConstructive NoticePersonal InjuryDiversity Jurisdiction
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe Ex Rel. Hickey v. Jefferson County

Plaintiff John Doe, a seven-year-old child in the custody of the Jefferson County Department of Social Services (JCDSS), alleges he suffered severe physical and mental abuse while in foster care. He brings a negligence claim against defendant Sandra Walsemann, a certified social worker and his therapist at the Watertown Collaborative Day Treatment Program. Doe claims Walsemann failed to provide adequate psychological assessment and treatment, properly report the alleged child abuse, and recommend his removal from the foster home. Walsemann moved to dismiss the amended complaint on grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity, failure to state a claim for negligence, and qualified immunity. The Court denied Walsemann's motion in its entirety, finding that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a suit against her in her personal capacity, the allegations are sufficient to state a claim for negligence, and she is not entitled to qualified immunity.

NegligenceChild AbuseFoster CareSocial Worker LiabilityQualified ImmunityEleventh AmendmentSubject Matter JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionMotion to DismissNew York Social Services Law
References
28
Case No. ADJ10082077
Regular
Feb 22, 2016

SANDRA CASTILLO vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Sandra Castillo's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a "final" order, as it only resolved an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The WCAB also denied her Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that reconsideration would not adequately address. Therefore, both the reconsideration and removal requests were rejected. The WCAB adopted the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge in its decision.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural DecisionsEvidentiary Decisions
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 109 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