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. SFO 0492831
Regular
Jan 23, 2008

ELIAS MONTOYA vs. ASTON BARNES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Board granted reconsideration to clarify the application of Labor Code section 4656 regarding temporary disability indemnity limits. The Board held that "new and further" disability does not extend the 104-week limit under section 4656(c)(1), nor do spinal disc excisions and bone grafts qualify as "amputations" under section 4656(c)(2)(C). Consequently, the applicant is entitled to temporary disability indemnity only up to two years from the date of the first payment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardElias MontoyaAston Barnes Inc.State Compensation Insurance FundSFO 0492831Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityIndustrial InjuryThoracic SpineChest Injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ2608381 (VNO 0557652)
Regular
Mar 15, 2010

LINDA HARRIS-BOYD vs. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns the application of Labor Code section 4656(c)(1), which limits temporary disability indemnity to 104 weeks within a two-year period. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior award because the administrative law judge (ALJ) incorrectly concluded that out-of-state compensation payments did not trigger the two-year limit. The WCAB clarified that section 4656(c)(1) applies to all temporary disability, regardless of whether it's total or partial, and includes payments made under foreign jurisdictions. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the commencement date of temporary disability payments and calculate any additional indemnity due.

Labor Code section 4656(c)(1)temporary disability indemnity104 compensable weekstwo-year periodMichigan lawaggregate disability paymentstemporary partial disabilitytemporary total disabilitySB 899Industrial Disability Leave
References
10
Case No. ADJ1143788 (VNO 0517331) ADJ2670708 (VNO 0517332)
Regular
Jul 01, 2011

SANTIAGO SOTO vs. AUTOZONE, INC., U.S. F& G, Administered By GALLAGHER BASSETT

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant sustained two industrial injuries: one on December 22, 2003 (cervical spine, lumbar spine, left shoulder) and another on September 2, 2004 (right and left knees). The defendant sought reconsideration of the original award, arguing that temporary disability benefits for the earlier injury should be limited by Labor Code section 4656(c)(1). However, the Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that the 104-week limitation under section 4656(c)(1) applies only to injuries occurring after its effective date of April 19, 2004. Since the applicant's first injury predates this date, the limitation does not apply to it, and benefits are awarded accordingly.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAutoZone Inc.U.S. F& GGallagher BassettSantiago SotoAmended Joint Findings and AwardTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityLabor Code section 4656Foster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2013

Christopher C. v. Bonnie C.

This divorce action between Christopher C. and Bonnie C. addresses equitable distribution, spousal maintenance, and counsel fees. The defendant, Bonnie C., who has a court-appointed guardian due to mental and emotional difficulties, had separated from the plaintiff in 2003 and informally divided marital assets. The court ratified this prior asset division, noting the defendant had dissipated her share. Finding the defendant unable to work and self-support, and the plaintiff capable of employment despite his claims of disability, the court awarded the defendant non-durational permanent maintenance of $2,500 per month and substantial attorney's fees. The plaintiff's motion to suspend or refund temporary maintenance was denied.

DivorceSpousal MaintenanceEquitable DistributionGuardianshipMental Health IssuesAsset DissipationAttorney's FeesFinancial CapacityPermanent MaintenanceMarital Property
References
12
Case No. 2016-910 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2018

Precious Acupuncture Care, P.C. v. Hereford Ins. Co.

This case concerns an action by Precious Acupuncture Care, P.C., as assignee of James Hough, against Hereford Insurance Company to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. Plaintiff sought the unpaid balance of five claims for services rendered between December 2013 and April 2014. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting that the amounts claimed exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Civil Court initially granted plaintiff's motion, ruling that defendant was precluded from the defense due to untimely denial. However, the Appellate Term reversed this decision, clarifying that under 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (g) (1) (ii); (2), for services rendered after April 1, 2013, payment is not due for fees exceeding permissible charges, irrespective of timely denial. Consequently, the Appellate Term vacated the prior order, denied plaintiff's motion, and granted defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentFee Schedule DefenseAppellate ReviewTimely DenialWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleMedical BillingInsurance LawCivil CourtAppellate Term
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2002

Saunders v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a proceeding under CPLR article 78. The petition was granted to the extent of enjoining the respondent from appointing temporary employees in disregard of Civil Service Law § 64 (1) and directing an amendment to its policy regarding Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) to include part-time employees. However, the application for lost wages and benefits on behalf of petitioner Patino was denied. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that the injunctive relief was properly granted as the respondent failed to articulate an important need for open-ended temporary employment consistent with Civil Service Law. The court also rejected the argument that Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) applies only to full-time employees, affirming that no hearing was required for Patino's termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Temporary EmployeesCivil Service LawInjunctive ReliefPart-time EmployeesLost WagesCollective Bargaining AgreementsTerminationPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2001

LaBarbera v. C. Volante Corp.

This action, brought under the Labor Management Relations Act and ERISA, sought recovery of delinquent pension fund contributions from October 1, 1993, to June 30, 1997. The court previously granted default judgment against C. Volante Corp. and C. Volante Trucking Corp. Plaintiffs, trustees of Local 282 Funds, moved for summary judgment against the remaining defendant, Vital Trucking Corp. The court found C. Volante Corp. liable for contributions based on its course of conduct, adopting collective bargaining agreements. C. Volante Trucking Corp. was found jointly liable under the 'single employer' theory due to shared operations, management, and ownership with C. Volante Corp. Vital Trucking Corp. was found jointly and severally liable under the 'alter ego' theory, as it was formed shortly after Volante/Trucking ceased operations, sharing substantially identical business purpose, equipment, customers, and management with the Volante family, indicating an attempt to avoid CBA obligations. The court denied Vital's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' motion, adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation for damages.

Labor Management Relations ActEmployee Retirement Income Security ActPension Fund ContributionsDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentSingle Employer DoctrineAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementUnion Labor
References
16
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06050 [154 AD3d 1]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2017

Matter of Leenasia C. (Lamarriea C.--Maxie B.)

The Administration for Children's Services (ACS) appealed a Family Court order that retroactively granted a suspended judgment to Lamarriea C., vacated a neglect finding, and dismissed a child neglect proceeding. The mother had initially consented to a neglect finding due to drug presence and unsanitary home conditions. After successfully completing the conditions of a dispositional order for 12 months, the mother moved to modify it. The Family Court granted her motion, reasoning that it was in the children's best interest, especially to remove barriers to the mother's employment opportunities. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, asserting that the Family Court possesses broad discretion under Family Court Act § 1061 to modify orders for good cause and that the mother's compliance and the children's welfare supported the vacatur of the neglect finding.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActSuspended JudgmentVacatur of Neglect FindingBest Interests of the ChildParental RightsAppellate ReviewChild Protective ProceedingsDispositional OrderGood Cause
References
42
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00133 [190 AD3d 505]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2021

Santana v. MMF 1212 Assoc L.L.C.

Plaintiff, Juan C. Santana, was injured during demolition work when a ceiling fell and struck him. He brought claims under Labor Law §§ 241 (6) and 200, alleging violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §§ 23-1.8 (c) and 23-3.3 (c). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Richard Mishkin Contracting Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding issues of fact regarding the provision of safety hats and ongoing inspections. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against MMF 1212 Assoc L.L.C. and Finkelstein Timberger East Real Estate LLC, as plaintiff did not oppose and they lacked control over the work. Finally, Mishkin's cross-claims for common-law contribution and indemnification were not dismissed due to conflicting expert opinions on the gravity of plaintiff's brain injury under Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Demolition AccidentFalling ObjectsConstruction SafetyLabor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentContribution ClaimIndemnification ClaimWorkers' CompensationAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. ADJ6609965, ADJ6827074
Regular
Apr 25, 2013

CHARLES MILLHORN vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES

Here's a summary for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an award for temporary disability benefits. The defendant argued that Labor Code Section 4656(c)(2) should apply, but the Board upheld the award under Section 4656(c)(1). This decision was based on the Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinion that both the 2007 and 2008 injuries contributed to the temporary disability. The Board also noted the applicant's attorney was admonished for attaching an exhibit already in evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityLabor Code Section 4656(c)(1)Labor Code Section 4656(c)(2)Agreed Medical EvaluatorSpecific InjuryCumulative TraumaApportionmentEDD
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 9,170 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