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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bressor v. Marriott Corp.

Claimant, a revenue reporting clerk, developed seizures linked to work-related stress, initially in January 1990 and again in January 1995 after increased duties. He filed a workers' compensation claim in May 1995. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the claim untimely, ruling the accident occurred in January 1990. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the January 1995 recurrence due to new stress constituted a separate, timely accident. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings to determine if the seizure disorder actually constituted an accident and its causal relationship to the job stress.

seizure disorderepilepsywork-related stresstimeliness of claimstatute of limitationsoccupational accidentBoard decisionappellate reviewremittalcausal relationship
References
2
Case No. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. ADJ4028459 (SRO 0142511)
Regular
Mar 02, 2017

ANITA HOLSTEIN vs. SONOMA DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involved a defendant challenging a permanent total disability award for an applicant with cumulative trauma injuries and a seizure disorder. The defendant argued the vocational expert's opinion was unreliable and the disability rating was improperly calculated. The Board affirmed the award, agreeing that while the rating methodology was technically flawed, the applicant's seizure disorder rendered her unable to return to the labor market, making the calculation error moot. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative TraumaPermanent Total DisabilityVocational ExpertSeizure DisorderNon-Epileptic SeizuresRating MethodologyCombined Values ChartSubstantial EvidenceGainful Employment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of John Z.

This case involves an appeal from an order recommitting the respondent to petitioner's custody due to a dangerous mental disorder. The respondent, with a history of multiple killings and a prior finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, had his parole revoked after exhibiting aggressive and threatening behavior upon conditional release. The Supreme Court determined he suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder with narcissistic and paranoid features, which was deemed a dangerous mental disorder justifying civil confinement under CPL 330.20. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the argument that the diagnosis was legally insufficient and upholding the finding of current dangerousness based on expert testimony, the respondent's history of violence, and his lack of insight into his condition.

dangerous mental disordercivil confinementantisocial personality disordernarcissistic featuresparanoid featuresCPL 330.20recommitmentmental illnessparole revocationexpert testimony
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 1982

Geen v. Foschio

Barbara Geen initiated a lawsuit challenging the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles' policy of automatically suspending or denying driver's licenses to individuals with seizure disorders without an impartial hearing, citing a violation of due process. Glen Neville, whose license was suspended due to a seizure, successfully moved to intervene in the case, seeking preliminary injunctive relief. The court granted Neville's motion, ordering his license reinstated with a daytime driving restriction and a requirement to report any future seizures. Furthermore, the court certified a statewide class of plaintiffs, concluding that both Geen and Neville demonstrated a likelihood of success on their claim that they are entitled to a due process hearing.

due processdriver's licensemotor vehicleepilepsyseizure disorderpreliminary injunctionclass actioninterventionmedical opinionconstitutional law
References
10
Case No. ADJ7257372
Regular
Dec 14, 2015

Joshua Geiger vs. George Geiger, State Farm Insurance Bakersfield

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The defendant argued that applicant's spouse had improper ex parte communication with the Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) by providing video and notes of the applicant's seizures. The WCAB denied reconsideration, finding that the communication occurred at the AME's request during the examination and was therefore exempt from statutory ex parte communication prohibitions. The Board concluded that the information provided was de minimis and did not warrant removal of the AME or striking of reports, especially since the seizure disorder was not a disputed issue.

Ex parte communicationAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Labor Code Section 4062.3Rule 35Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJ ReportEpilepsySeizuresHome health care
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 1996

Claim of Palevsky v. New York City Board of Education

In 1986, while working as an education associate in the Bronx, the claimant sustained a fractured nose due to a student altercation and filed a timely workers' compensation claim, receiving benefits. The case remained open for a pending nasal surgery issue. Years later, in 1992, the claimant sought compensation for alleged consequential posttraumatic stress disorder. The self-insured employer, the New York City Board of Education, argued that Workers' Compensation Law § 28, a two-year statute of limitations, barred this new claim. However, both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed that Section 28 does not apply to consequential injuries. Upon appeal, the Court concurred, holding that a subsequent claim for disability compensation related to injuries in an earlier, timely claim is not barred by the two-year limit for amendment.

Workers' CompensationPosttraumatic Stress DisorderStatute of LimitationsConsequential InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 28Time BarBoard DecisionAppealWorkplace InjuryNasal Fracture
References
3
Case No. 10 Civ. 3314; 10 Civ. 5013
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2010

Alzheimer's Foundation of America, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This consolidated opinion addresses dueling motions to dismiss in two civil actions involving the Alzheimer’s Foundation of Americas, Inc. (the "Foundation") and the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the "Association"). The Foundation initiated a lawsuit alleging misrepresentation, trademark dilution, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, conversion, and UCC violations against the Association and Northern Trust. Conversely, the Association filed its own complaint asserting claims of trademark infringement, libel, injurious falsehood, false designation, dilution, fraud, tortious interference, injury to business reputation, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy against the Foundation and several individuals. The court denied motions to dismiss the Lanham Act, dilution, and unfair competition claims for both parties, but granted motions to dismiss the UCC, conversion, libel, unjust enrichment, and fraud claims, including all claims against Northern Trust. Leave to amend the complaints was granted.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionLanham ActDilutionUnjust EnrichmentConversionFraudCollateral EstoppelMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tsoucalas v. Tsoucalas

This case concerns a divorce proceeding addressing child support, equitable distribution of the marital residence, and child custody. The court upheld a child support award of $110 per week, determining the defendant's earning potential as a cook-manager exceeded his reported income. The plaintiff was awarded half the proceeds from the marital residence sale, acknowledging her 11 years of unpaid work in the defendant's family business. Sole custody of their son, who has a seizure disorder, was granted to the plaintiff, citing the defendant's exclusive focus on business and limited engagement in family activities.

Child SupportEquitable DistributionChild CustodyEarning PotentialMarital ResidenceUnpaid LaborParental GuidanceVisitation RightsFamily BusinessSeizure Disorder
References
5
Case No. Z docket
Regular Panel Decision

Administration for Children's Services v. Silvia S.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), the petitioner, moved the court for an order requiring the production of psychological, psychiatric, and medical records of the respondent, the mother of Daniel C. No child neglect or abuse petition had been filed. ACS cited the respondent's history of seizure disorder and postpartum depression, and alleged neglect based on non-compliance with medication and periods of homelessness. The court denied the motion, finding that ACS had not demonstrated a cause of action, and that the request for records was an improper attempt to determine if a cause of action existed. The court further held that the interest of justice in this matter did not outweigh the respondent's right to confidentiality under HIPAA and Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13.

Family LawChild NeglectPre-action DisclosureMedical RecordsPsychiatric RecordsConfidentialityHIPAAMental Hygiene LawSeizure DisorderPostpartum Depression
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 461 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