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. CA 11-02000
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2012

OLSEN, MICHAEL JAMES v. KOZLOWSKI, SHIRLEY F.

Plaintiff Michael James Olsen commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained from falling during residence construction. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants Louis F. Kozlowski and Shirley F. Kozlowski (property owners) cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted dismissal against Louis F. Kozlowski and denied dismissal against Shirley F. Kozlowski, also granting plaintiff's motion against Shirley F. Kozlowski. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying plaintiff's motion in its entirety, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether Shirley F. Kozlowski was an officer of the employer, which could bar the action under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6).

Personal InjuryLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationOfficer LiabilityEmployer ImmunityConstruction AccidentFall from Height
References
20
Case No. ADJ2570253
Regular
Oct 18, 2012

SHIRLEY KING vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Shirley King's Petition for Reconsideration regarding her medical mileage claim. The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) findings, which found the applicant lacked credibility due to apparent willful dishonesty about her residence. However, the Board returned the case to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the employer's request for sanctions under Labor Code section 5813. The WCJ will address sanctions because the alleged misconduct occurred during proceedings before them.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJLabor Code section 5813sanctionswillful dishonestycredibilityAgreed Medical ExaminerStipulations with Request for Awardpermanent partial disability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carter v. Bane

Petitioner Shirley Carter, the paternal grandmother of Javette Alexander, challenged a New York State Department of Social Services (NYS-DSS) decision disallowing foster care payments for Javette from May 2, 1986, onwards. While payments were approved for an earlier period, NYS-DSS argued Carter's foster parent status lapsed upon the expiration of a Family Court placement order. The court found that the New York City Department of Social Services (NYC-DSS) failed in its statutory duty to extend or review Javette's placement, effectively abandoning the child and unjustly changing Carter's status from a paid caregiver to a volunteer. The court granted Carter's application, ordering retroactive foster care payments from May 2, 1986, and remanded the case for a review of Javette's legal status.

Foster Care PaymentsChild CustodyArticle 78 ProceedingGrandparent RightsNeglect PetitionPlacement OrderAbandoned ChildGovernment Agency ResponsibilityKinship Foster CareRetroactive Payments
References
5
Case No. ADJ10851942
Regular
Mar 29, 2019

PEDRO RIVADENEYRA vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, MARRIOTT CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Pedro Rivadeneyra's Petition for Reconsideration and dismissed his Petition for Removal. The Board found that the sole issue challenged, treatment outside the Medical Provider Network (MPN), was an interlocutory order. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not demonstrated here. Reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision were to issue.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalMedical Provider Network (MPN)AOE/COEinterlocutory ordernon-final orderextraordinary remedysubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmadequate remedy
References
2
Case No. ADJ2514701 (ANA 0345641) ADJ2172461 (ANA 0337687)
Regular
Nov 01, 2010

SHIRLEY RIVADENEYRA vs. CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ's award finding applicant suffered new and further permanent disability and was 100% disabled. Defendant contended the WCJ erred by failing to apportion to a prior disability award and by awarding lifetime permanent total disability indemnity at a temporary disability rate. The Board rescinded the award, finding the WCJ incorrectly analyzed apportionment under SB 899, and remanded for further proceedings on permanent disability and apportionment.

Shirley RivadeneyraCapistrano Unified School DistrictNational Union Fire Insurance CompanyChartis ClaimsInc.Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and AwardNew and Further DisabilityLabor Code Section 5410Spine Injury
References
4
Case No. ADJ3766392 (AHM 0088962)
Regular
Jul 02, 2013

SHIRLEY HARRELSON vs. COUNTY OF ORANGE, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case concerns Shirley Harrelson's claim of discrimination under Labor Code §132a after she voluntarily retired for service and was subsequently denied disability retirement. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the administrative law judge's report. The Board found Harrelson was not entitled to job reinstatement under Government Code §31725.7(b) because she voluntarily retired for service prior to her disability retirement application. Furthermore, she failed to prove she suffered disadvantages due to her injury or claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCounty of OrangeYork Risk Services GroupShirley HarrelsonGovernment Code §31725.7Phillips v. County of FresnoDepartment of Rehabilitation/State of California v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Labor Code §132aservice retirementdisability retirement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rehman v. State University of New York at Stony Brook

Jamil Rehman, M.D., a Pakistani-American, 51-year-old Muslim urologist, sued SUNY Stony Brook and individual defendants (Shirley Strum Kenny, Richard Fine, M.D., and Wayne Waltzer, M.D.) alleging discrimination and retaliation. He claimed he was denied promotion, received less favorable pay and leave terms compared to a non-minority counterpart, and his research and surgical activities were hindered. Rehman also alleged he faced retaliation after complaining about discriminatory treatment, billing practices, and patient safety issues. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The court partially dismissed Rehman's age discrimination claims (without prejudice), his § 1981 claim (with prejudice as a separate cause of action), breach of contract, and waste claims (all with prejudice); however, it denied the defendants' motion to dismiss Rehman's Title VII and NYSHRL retaliation claims, and his § 1983 claims for violations of § 1981, the First Amendment, and the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, allowing them to proceed.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationAge DiscriminationRace DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationFirst Amendment RightsDue Process ClauseMotion to DismissCivil Rights
References
55
Case No. SFO 495194
Regular
Jul 17, 2007

SHIRLEY SHAW vs. SETON MEDICAL CENTER, Permissibly Self-Insured and Administered by OCTAGON RISK SERVICES

This case involves a dispute over the apportionment of permanent disability for Shirley Shaw's left shoulder and neck injury. The employer sought reconsideration of an award finding $34\%$ permanent disability, arguing the judge erred by not apportioning $30\%$ of the disability to a pre-existing condition as suggested by the Agreed Medical Examiner. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and returned the case for further proceedings on apportionment, noting the defendant did not waive the issue and that the AME's apportionment lacked sufficient detail.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSETTER MEDICAL CENTEROCTAGON RISK SERVICESSHIRLEY SHAWOPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATIONFINDINGS AND AWARDPERMANENT DISABILITYAPPORTIONMENTAGREED MEDICAL EXAMINERPRE-EXISTING DEGENERATIVE CONDITION
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03708
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2020

Matter of Roberts v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Claimant Shirley Roberts, injured in 1989, received workers' compensation benefits for a permanent partial disability. In 2017, her employer alleged she violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by making a material misrepresentation, citing video surveillance of her performing duties as a church pastor despite reporting no volunteer work. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found insufficient evidence of a violation, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board credited Roberts' testimony that she did not consider her church activity as work or volunteer work, but rather spiritual worship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence as the Board is the sole arbiter of credibility.

Workers' CompensationMisrepresentationDisability BenefitsCredibilityVideo SurveillanceChurch PastorVolunteer WorkMaterial FactPermanent Partial DisabilityAppellate Division
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2011

Olsen v. Kozlowski

The plaintiff, an employee of L & A Builders, Inc., suffered injuries after falling from a residence under construction, initiating a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against the property owners, Shirley F. Kozlowski and Louis F. Kozlowski. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff partial summary judgment against Shirley F. Kozlowski but this was challenged on appeal. The appellate court modified the order, denying the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability in its entirety. This decision stemmed from a triable issue of fact concerning whether Shirley F. Kozlowski was an officer of the plaintiff's employer, L & A Builders, Inc., which could invoke the exclusivity provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). Consequently, the order was affirmed as modified, ultimately denying the plaintiff's motion.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationProperty Owner LiabilityOfficer ImmunityAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFall from HeightOneida County
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 42 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