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

Wheeler v. Grande'Vie Senior Living Community

Plaintiff John A. Wheeler suffered injuries after slipping on ice and falling in the parking lot of defendant's assisted living facility while helping his mother-in-law move during a snowstorm. The area where he fell had been shoveled, but ice was present beneath a thin layer of snow. Wheeler and his wife initiated a personal injury action, which the Supreme Court dismissed by granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, citing the "storm in progress" doctrine. On appeal, the higher court affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendant's snow removal efforts created a hazardous condition or exacerbated the natural hazards of the storm. Furthermore, the court found no duty to warn of icy conditions during an ongoing storm under the specific circumstances, upholding the dismissal of the complaint.

Personal InjurySlip and FallPremises LiabilityStorm in Progress DoctrineSummary JudgmentLandowner DutySnow RemovalIceNegligenceAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06887 [211 AD3d 432]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2022

Lively v. Wafra Inv. Advisory Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Francis P. Lively, appealed an order that dismissed his complaint against Wafra Investment Advisory Group, Inc. and Fawaz Al-Mubaraki. Lively, a former senior managing director, alleged age discrimination and retaliation under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws after being terminated due to sexual harassment complaints. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Lively failed to sufficiently allege age discrimination or a causal connection for retaliation. Additionally, his claims for tortious interference, defamation, negligence, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit were also found to be inadequately pleaded or barred by other laws. The Second Circuit's prior dismissal of federal claims did not, however, preclude state law claims based on collateral estoppel.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawHuman Rights LawCollateral EstoppelWrongful TerminationTortious InterferenceDefamationUnjust EnrichmentQuantum Meruit
References
16
Case No. ADJ2806552 (SAC 0224145)
Regular
May 13, 2009

JOELLE NEELEY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, LEGALLY UNINSURED

This case concerns a defendant's petition for removal denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The defendant objected to a trial continuance, arguing due process violations due to premature trial scheduling and questioning the evidence supporting the need for assisted living. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, clarifying that the trial issue is causation for the need of assisted living, not its necessity or utilization review. Therefore, the matter will proceed to trial on the disputed issue of causation and liability for assisted living costs.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferencePrimary Treating PhysicianAgreed Medical EvaluatorEvidence-Based MedicineSubstantial EvidenceAssisted Living FacilityCausation of NeedUtilization ReviewIndustrial Injuries
References
1
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07401
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Matter of Carola B.-M. v. New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Petitioners Carola B.-M. and Tiara M. challenged the denial of their supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the Orleans County Department of Social Services. The benefits were denied because they were deemed ineligible college students. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this determination, holding that participation in the Adult Career and Continuing Education Services, Vocational Rehabilitation program (ACCES-VR) qualifies as a Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program. This status exempts the students from certain SNAP eligibility requirements. The court found that the original determination was based on an unreasonable interpretation of relevant regulations, annulled the decision, granted the petition, and remitted the case for a calculation of retroactive benefits.

SNAP benefitscollege student eligibilityJob Training Partnership ActACCES-VRvocational rehabilitationCPLR article 78regulatory interpretationpublic assistancefood stampsAppellate Division
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheridan v. Carter

The plaintiffs, Fontaine Sheridan and Donald Sheridan, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County. The original order had granted the defendant Domestic Workers United's (DWU) motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action in a defamation case, and also granted defendant Cindy Carter's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her. The appellate court reversed this order, denying both DWU's motion to dismiss and Carter's motion for summary judgment. The case stemmed from Carter's allegations of abuse and exploitation by the Sheridans, which were published in newspapers and circulated by DWU in flyers, leading the Sheridans to sue for defamation. The appellate court found sufficient allegations for a libel claim against DWU and that Carter failed to prove the truth of her defamatory statements.

DefamationLibelSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(7)Appellate ReviewPublic ConcernDomestic WorkersAbuse AllegationsImmigration Status
References
18
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02680
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2022

Finocchi v. Live Nation Inc.

Carmen J. Finocchi, Jr. sustained injuries while manually loading rigging equipment, leading to a lawsuit against Live Nation Inc. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, ruling that Finocchi's failure to use an available forklift was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court found that Finocchi's choice not to use a forklift could not be deemed the sole proximate cause, particularly as he was instructed to lift the equipment manually. The court also affirmed that the work performed fell under the coverage of Labor Law § 240 (1), reinstating the claim, granting judgment on liability to the plaintiffs, and remitting for a new trial solely on the issue of damages.

LiabilityWorkplace SafetyForkliftManual LiftingAppellate ReviewProximate CauseComparative FaultInjuryDemolition WorkStage Rigging
References
20
Case No. ADJ1329489 (MON 0356260)
Regular
May 27, 2010

CHAVA COHEN vs. SHERIDAN ASSISTED LIVING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant who sustained industrial injuries to her hip, knee, and spine. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied petitions for reconsideration from both the applicant and the defendant. The Board affirmed the findings that the applicant did not prove a psyche injury due to a sudden and extraordinary condition, and that her average weekly earnings and temporary disability rate were correctly calculated. The Board also upheld the permanent disability rating, finding the agreed medical evaluator's opinion substantial evidence and rejecting the defendant's arguments regarding apportionment and modified work offers.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPsyche InjurySudden and Extraordinary Condition of EmploymentDiminished Future Earning CapacityOgilvieAgreed Medical EvaluatorAlmarazPermanent Disability
References
7
Case No. ADJ1329489 (MON 0256260)
Regular
Jun 08, 2011

CHAVA COHEN vs. SHERIDAN ASSISTED LIVING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded an order compelling payment of medical-legal expenses, and denied the applicant's petition. The Board found that the vocational rehabilitation counselor's testimony, intended to rebut the diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) adjustment factor under *Ogilvie*, was so deficient as to be incapable of affecting the applicant's permanent disability rating. Therefore, the costs of obtaining this testimony were deemed not recoverable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSheridan Assisted LivingState Compensation Insurance Fundmedical legal expenseJudie FogelOgilvievocational rehabilitation counselorpermanent disability ratingdiminished future earning capacityDFEC
References
2
Case No. ADJ1329489
Regular
Sep 06, 2011

CHAVA COHEN vs. SHERIDAN ASSISTED LIVING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns vocational consultant Judie Fogel's request for reconsideration of a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB previously rescinded an order for defendants to pay Fogel $1,700.00 for "medical legal expense for issues relating to the Ogilvie case," finding her testimony deficient and thus non-recoverable costs. Fogel argued her testimony addressed more than just Ogilvie issues, including average weekly wages, and that it was not necessary for her to independently calculate wage loss. The WCAB denied reconsideration, reiterating that Fogel was retained specifically for Ogilvie issues and her testimony remained deficient, citing precedent.

Vocational consultantReconsiderationOpinion and OrderMedical legal expenseOgilvie caseWage lossAverage weekly wagesPermanent disability ratingReimbursementEn banc decisions
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00653 [179 AD3d 1412]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of James v. Home Comfort Assistance, Inc.

Claimant Christina James sought workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a work-related ankle injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge established an employer-employee relationship and awarded benefits. Home Comfort Assistance, Inc. appealed this decision to the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application for review was denied due to incompleteness; specifically, referring to attached pages for the "Basis for Appeal" instead of providing the information directly on the form RB-89. Home Comfort then appealed the Board's denial to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the Board acted within its discretion by refusing to consider an application that did not fully comply with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1).

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewIncomplete ApplicationForm RB-89Administrative ReviewDiscretionary AuthorityProcedural ComplianceThird DepartmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipJurisdictional Defect
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 930 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