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. CV-24-0230
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Sally Rorapaugh

The Workers' Compensation Board (Board) found that claimant Sally Rorapaugh was not required to obtain the carrier's consent for settling her third-party action, as the settlement amount of $9 million significantly exceeded her estimated lifetime workers' compensation benefits. The Board also calculated a reduction on the carrier's lien, determining that the carrier owed claimant an additional $113,631.55. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's finding that carrier consent was unnecessary under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). However, the Court reversed the Board's decision regarding the lien reduction calculation, holding that the Board lacked jurisdiction to determine the equitable apportionment of legal expenses, which must be sought in the court where the third-party action was instituted. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the Appellate Division's decision.

Workers' Compensation Law § 29Third-Party Settlement ConsentWorkers' Compensation Carrier LienEquitable Apportionment of Legal ExpensesBoard JurisdictionAppellate ReviewWrongful Death ClaimMotor Vehicle AccidentNet Recovery CalculationLifetime Benefits
References
7
Case No. CA 10-02164
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2011

SIEGL, SALLY v. NEW PLAN EXCEL REALTY TRUST, INC.

Sally Siegl sustained injuries after falling in a parking lot owned by New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc. The fall was allegedly due to a depression in the parking lot caused by settlement of crushed stones used by AALCO Septic & Sewer, Inc., which had repaired a water main two months prior. New Plan brought a third-party action against AALCO for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Supreme Court granted AALCO's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the common-law indemnification claim, finding New Plan also negligent. The majority also affirmed the dismissal of the contribution claim, concluding AALCO did not owe an independent duty of care or launch a force of harm. A dissenting opinion argued that there was a question of fact regarding AALCO creating the dangerous condition, thus precluding summary judgment on the contribution claim.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContributionNegligenceAppellate ReviewWater Main RepairParking LotHazardous Condition
References
12
Case No. ADJ892742 (SJO 0240973) MF ADJ6718849
Regular
Jul 21, 2000

SALLY MACKIN vs. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer in four sentences: The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision finding industrial injuries to her shoulders, neck, and wrists, resulting in 43% and 9% permanent disability respectively, and awarded future medical treatment but denied claims for hypertension and psychological injury. Applicant contended the WCJ erred in permanent disability ratings, the application of the PDRS, and the DEU rater's methodology. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the 1997 PDRS was not applicable to the cumulative injury and that the DEU rater acted within her expertise. A dissenting commissioner argued the 1997 PDRS should apply to the cumulative injury and that the record needed further development regarding permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSally MackinSanta Clara County FairgroundsADJ892742ADJ6718849Findings Awards and Orderspermanent disabilitycumulative injuryhypertension injuryfuture medical treatment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. United States

Plaintiffs George A. Taylor and Sally Taylor brought an action against the United States under the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) for personal injuries Mr. Taylor sustained on February 4, 1994. Mr. Taylor slipped on icy snow while entering the Cicero-Clay Post Office in Cicero, New York. The case was tried without a jury, commencing on November 16, 1998, in Syracuse, New York. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, claiming the defendant failed to maintain safe premises, but the defendant denied negligence and lack of notice. Applying New York state law, the court required proof that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous icy conditions. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the sidewalk's dangerous condition prior to the incident, as no complaints were made before Taylor's slip. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the plaintiffs did not establish negligence on the part of the defendant.

Federal Tort Claims ActFTCANegligenceSlip and FallIcy ConditionsPost OfficePremises LiabilityActual NoticeConstructive NoticeFederal Court
References
8
Case No. VNO 0459871
Regular
May 21, 2008

SALLY PEREZ vs. UNIVERSAL CARE INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim where the applicant, Sally Perez, was awarded 100% permanent disability due to injuries sustained in 2002. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the total disability rating was erroneous, but the Appeals Board denied the petition. The Board found substantial evidence supported the 100% rating, including physician opinions and vocational expert testimony, concluding the applicant was unable to compete in the open labor market.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSally PerezUniversal Care Inc.State Compensation Insurance FundFindings and Awardpermanent disabilityvocational rehabilitation expertLabor Code section 4660(b)(2)industrial injuryfibromyalgia
References
2
Case No. ADJ6573016
Regular
Feb 05, 2020

NANCY SWINNEY vs. SALLY BEAUTY HOLDINGS, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has rescinded its January 3, 2019 decision in Nancy Swinney v. Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc. This action was taken because the parties have reached a proposed settlement while the case was pending reconsideration. The matter is now returned to the trial level for the Workers' Compensation Judge to review the settlement proposal. This order is not a final determination on the merits of the appealed issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSettlementRescinded DecisionReturned to Trial LevelProposed SettlementFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeCal. Code Regs.tit. 8
References
0
Case No. ADJ7422830
Regular
Jun 20, 2012

SALLY BRAITHWAITE MARSHALL vs. SANTA MARIA JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, WORKERS' COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATORS

The Applicant, Sally Braithwaite Marshall, petitioned for removal to reverse an order denying a change of venue, seeking to consolidate two claims venued at different district offices. She argued both applications should be heard in Goleta. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that the Applicant's request was, in fact, a petition for consolidation. The Board directed the Applicant to follow the proper procedure under Rule 10260, which requires referral to the presiding WCJs for resolution before the Appeals Board.

Petition for RemovalOrder Denying Change of VenueApplication for Adjudication of ClaimConsolidation of CasesDistrict Office VenuePresiding WCJsRule 10260Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy CommissionerAdministrative Law Judge
References
1
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06370 [243 AD3d 1087]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

Matter of Rorapaugh v. New Penn Motor Express LLC

Claimant Sally Rorapaugh's spouse died in a work-related motor vehicle accident. She settled a third-party action for $5.9 million net, prompting the workers' compensation carrier to argue its consent was required and to discontinue payments. The Workers' Compensation Board found the carrier's consent unnecessary due to the settlement exceeding benefits and calculated a lien reduction, concluding the carrier owed claimant an additional $113,631.55. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed that carrier consent was not needed for the large settlement. However, it reversed the Board's lien reduction calculation, ruling the Board lacked jurisdiction to determine the equitable apportionment of legal expenses, which must be addressed by the court where the third-party action was filed. The case was remitted for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionSettlementCarrier ConsentLien ReductionEquitable ApportionmentJurisdictionMotor Vehicle AccidentStatutory AmountFuture Benefits
References
6
Case No. CA 12-00803
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2013

TOWN OF AMHERST v. HILGER, ARTHUR

The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified a judgment by the Supreme Court, Erie County, in a case involving the Town of Amherst and Granite State Insurance Company against Arthur Hilger and Sally Bisher. The dispute arose from the defendants' refusal, as former officers of McGonigle and Hill Roofing, Inc. (M&H), to seek insurance coverage from the New York State Insurance Fund (SIF) for a judgment the Town held against M&H. While the Supreme Court granted plaintiffs a substantial money judgment, the Appellate Division concluded that the plaintiffs' legal theories regarding Business Corporation Law violations and breach of fiduciary duty lacked merit. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion in its entirety. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court to join M&H as a necessary party and convert the action into a special proceeding under Business Corporation Law § 1008, empowering the court to compel M&H to seek coverage from SIF.

Workers' CompensationIndemnificationBusiness Corporation LawFiduciary DutyCorporate DissolutionInsurance CoverageSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRemittalNecessary Parties
References
25
Case No. ADJ7422830; ADJ7605326
Regular
Feb 11, 2014

SALLY BRAITHWAITE MARSHALL vs. SANTA MARIA JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, WORKERS COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATOR, TRANSITIONS MENTAL HEALTH/STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves two consolidated workers' compensation claims for Sally Braithwaite Marshall concerning alleged injuries from "sick building syndrome" and toxic substance exposure. The Appeals Board granted applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the trial judge's order to proceed to trial. The Board found that discovery was incomplete, pre-trial statements were not filed, and insufficient notice was given for trial preparation due to the complexity of the consolidated cases. Consequently, the matters are returned to be reset for a mandatory settlement conference, and venue is transferred to the Santa Barbara district office.

Petition for RemovalWCJAgreed Medical EvaluatorDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferencePretrial Conference StatementSick Building SyndromeToxic Substances ExposureConsolidation of CasesAutomatic Reassignment
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 32 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