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. 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. 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. 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

Matter of Hopkins v. Emcor Group, Inc.

Claimant suffered serious injuries after falling from a scissors lift at work. His claim for workers’ compensation benefits was controverted by the employer and its carrier, who argued the fall was caused by a seizure from substance or alcohol withdrawal, not work-related. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found the injury to be work-related. On appeal, the carrier presented testimony from a neurologist who could only state a seizure was 'likely,' and eyewitnesses could not definitively rule out the claimant becoming entangled in hoses. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that the carrier's evidence was speculative and insufficient to rebut the Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 presumption of compensability.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising out of EmploymentPresumption of CompensabilityScissors Lift FallSeizureSubstance Abuse WithdrawalAlcohol WithdrawalMedical Testimony
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LM Business Associates, Inc. v. State

Defendant appealed a Court of Claims judgment that found them liable to claimants for conversion and negligent misrepresentation. The case stemmed from the seizure of claimants' computers during a fraud investigation into affiliated businesses, which resulted in the owner's conviction, though claimants were never charged. The seized computers, vital for claimants' businesses, were returned over two years later. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that defendant's seizure and retention of the computers were authorized by a valid search warrant, thus not constituting conversion. It further ruled that no 'privity-like relationship' existed between investigators and claimants to support a negligent misrepresentation claim. Lastly, the court dismissed the constitutional tort claim, noting claimants had adequate alternative remedies in other forums.

ConversionNegligent MisrepresentationSearch WarrantSeizure of PropertyState LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstitutional TortFraud InvestigationWorkers' Compensation LawCourt of Claims
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 1984

Harris v. State

Adrienne D., a mentally disabled individual with a history of epileptic seizures, suffered severe burns in a State-certified family care home bathroom with a locked door that prevented outside access during an epileptic seizure. The Court of Claims initially found the State vicariously liable through its agents, the McNairs, the family care providers. On appeal, the court rejected the vicarious liability argument, establishing that family care providers are independent contractors. However, the court affirmed the judgment against the State based on its direct negligence in failing to provide a reasonably safe environment given Adrienne's known medical condition and the foreseeable risks posed by the non-accessible bathroom lock. The court emphasized the State's duty to protect patients while acknowledging the goals of normalization programs.

Mental Hygiene LawState LiabilityDirect NegligenceFamily Care HomeEpilepsyPersonal InjuryBurn InjuryForeseeabilityIndependent ContractorVicarious Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ostensen v. Suffolk County

Nancy Ostensen initiated an action against Suffolk County, its Police Department, Officer Thomas Gallagher, and private individuals Patricia Capucci and Rosemary Kneeht, asserting constitutional violations under Section 1983 and various New York state law claims. The Plaintiff alleged unreasonable search and seizure, and due process violations stemming from an incident where the private defendants entered a residence where Ostensen lived, with Officer Gallagher's alleged non-intervention. The County Defendants sought summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment, determining there was no evidence of conspiracy between the state and private actors, that Ostensen lacked a possessory interest in the property for an unreasonable seizure claim, and that Officer Gallagher was shielded by qualified immunity as his actions were objectively reasonable. Consequently, all federal claims were dismissed, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1983Fourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentUnreasonable Search and SeizureDue ProcessQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentState ActionConspiracyMunicipal Liability
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zirlin v. Village of Scarsdale

Plaintiff Harry Zirlin filed a motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, alternatively, for a new trial, following an adverse jury verdict in his civil rights action. Zirlin, an attorney and beetle collector, was seized and handcuffed by police officers Pobereskin, Zappolo, and Raysor in Scarsdale, New York, after a civilian reported a man with a knife in the woods. The police were also aware of recent threats of violence in the area. The jury found that Zirlin was seized, but the seizure was reasonable, he was not arrested, and no excessive force was used. Zirlin argued that the jury's verdict was unsupportable as a matter of law, the reasonableness of the seizure was a question for the court, his detention constituted an arrest without probable cause, and excessive force was used. The court denied Zirlin's motion in all respects, upholding the jury's findings, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the verdict, and finding no errors in the jury instructions or the admissibility of testimony.

Civil RightsFourth AmendmentJury VerdictJudgment as a Matter of LawNew TrialTerry StopReasonable SeizureProbable CauseExcessive ForcePolice Conduct
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2012

Genovese v. Town of Southampton

Plaintiff Nancy Genovese sued the Town of Southampton and Lieutenant Robert Iberger, among others, alleging constitutional rights violations related to her detention and arrest on July 30, 2009, outside Gabreski Airport. Genovese was initially detained by Iberger for photographing a military base while in possession of a rifle, and subsequently arrested by Suffolk County officers for trespass. The Southampton defendants moved for summary judgment on claims of false arrest, excessive force, illegal seizure of her firearm, and a Monell claim against the Town. The Court granted summary judgment, concluding that Iberger had probable cause for the detention and lawful seizure of the firearm, and did not use excessive force. The Monell claim against the Town was also dismissed for lack of an underlying constitutional violation and insufficient evidence of an unconstitutional policy or custom. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Summary JudgmentFourth AmendmentFalse ArrestExcessive ForceIllegal SeizureProbable CauseQualified ImmunityPlain View DoctrineAutomobile ExceptionMonell Claim
References
72
Showing 1-10 of 77 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