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
Nov 19, 2010

United States v. Forde

Defendant Michael Forde pled guilty to racketeering conspiracy and acts of racketeering. He requested a sentence below the United States Sentencing Guidelines' recommended range of 108 to 135 months, while the Government advocated for a sentence at the top of this range. The Court denied Forde's request, adopting the findings of the Presentence Investigation Report and sentencing him to 132 months of incarceration and a $50,000 fine. The decision emphasized the extraordinary nature of Forde's corruption over 15 years as a high-ranking union official, involving hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes, embezzlement, and significant financial losses to union benefit funds, all in violation of a standing court judgment.

RacketeeringSentencing GuidelinesUnion CorruptionEmbezzlementFederal CrimeGuilty PleaAggravating FactorsPublic Official MisconductCriminal SentencingOrganizational Fraud
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 1994

People v. Chi Keung Seto

The defendant, Chi Keung Seto, moved to dismiss his indictment, which included charges of first-degree kidnapping and second-degree assault, citing a violation of his speedy trial rights under CPL 30.30. The legal action began in November 1990, but a bench warrant was issued in March 1991 after Seto failed to appear in court. The People contended they exercised due diligence in locating Seto, who was later discovered to have been a shooting victim, comatose in a hospital under a different identity, and subsequently transferred to a rehabilitation center and then to California. Following a May 1994 hearing, the court, presided over by Justice Alfred H. Kleiman, ruled that the prosecution's efforts constituted due diligence despite not linking the shooting victim to the outstanding warrant. Consequently, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment.

Speedy TrialCPL 30.30Due DiligenceBench WarrantIndictment DismissalFelony ChargesKidnappingAssaultCriminal Possession of WeaponFugitive Search
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Donnell v. Town Board of Amherst

The case centers on a challenge by petitioners against the Amherst Town Board's three-year bait-and-shoot deer management program. Petitioners asserted that the Town Board's issuance of a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) was flawed due to a lack of data on the program's potential environmental impact. The court determined that the Town Board's negative declaration was irrational and violated the spirit and letter of SEQRA because it was made without knowing the number of deer that would be killed, thereby precluding a proper assessment of significant environmental effects. Consequently, the court annulled the Town Board's March 4, 1996 resolution approving the program and the associated negative declaration. The decision mandates that the Town initiate a new SEQRA review process if it intends to implement any future bait-and-shoot programs.

Environmental LawSEQRADeer ManagementBait-and-shoot ProgramNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementCPLR Article 78 ProceedingDeclaratory Judgment ActionTown BoardWildlife Management
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sgueglia v. Kelly

The petitioner, Stephen T. Sgueglia, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the respondent, the New York City Police Department, challenging its denial of a target shooting endorsement. This endorsement would permit him to travel outside New York City with his premises residence handgun license for target shooting activities. The court analyzed the case under the arbitrary and capricious standard and the equal protection clause, noting that petitioner's previously held target license was converted to a premises residence license with travel restrictions within NYC. The court concluded that the respondent's rules are rational, serving the compelling interest of public safety by limiting firearms in public. It further found no equal protection violation, as the distinction between hunters (who can travel) and target shooters is rational and not based on a suspect class or malicious intent. Therefore, the petition was denied, and the proceeding was dismissed.

Firearm LicensingPistol LicenseTarget Shooting EndorsementPremises Residence LicenseCPLR Article 78Equal ProtectionAdministrative LawPublic SafetyGun ControlSecond Amendment
References
8
Case No. 46885/05, 47943/05, 47945/05
Regular Panel Decision

Robert Physical Therapy, P.C. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

This case involves three consolidated claims for first-party no-fault benefits related to physical therapy services. The plaintiff's assignors received physical therapy, and the defendant, an insurer, denied some claims due to disputes over billing codes. The central legal issues concerned whether a physical therapist could utilize billing codes from the medicine fee schedule when such services were not explicitly in the physical medicine schedule, and if range of motion and muscle testing could be billed separately from evaluation and management on the same day. The court determined that physical therapists are not confined to the physical medicine section and can use codes from any section of the medical fee schedule. Furthermore, the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify its denials regarding separate billing for range of motion and muscle testing. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding judgment for all disputed amounts.

Physical Therapy BillingNo-Fault BenefitsMedical Fee ScheduleCPT CodesWorkers' Compensation RegulationsEvaluation and Management ServicesRange of Motion TestingMuscle TestingProvider SpecialtyBilling Disputes
References
4
Case No. CV-24-1300
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly Siddon

Kimberly Siddon appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying the reopening of her claim for an increased schedule loss of use (SLU) of her left knee. Siddon, who had previously undergone two surgeries and received SLU findings of 12% and 20%, sought a 35% SLU based on an orthopedic surgeon's report detailing worsening range of motion. The Special Fund for Reopened Cases failed to properly contest the surgeon's medical opinion, despite multiple opportunities. The Board, however, rejected the surgeon's objective range-of-motion measurements as merely subjective, a finding inconsistent with its own impairment guidelines. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the Special Fund had waived its right to contest the evidence and that the Board's rationale for denial was unsupported given the uncontradicted and properly rendered medical opinion. The case was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the Court's decision.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseLeft Knee InjuryClaim ReopeningMedical ExaminationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWaiverBoard DiscretionMedical EvidenceRange of Motion
References
7
Case No. ADJ3962190 (VNO 0406509)
Regular
Jun 15, 2012

VOLODYMYR NAUMENKO vs. TECHNICAL TROUBLE SHOOTING, GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights. The petition was also denied regarding removal, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. A joinder petition by Liberty Mutual and Golden Eagle was dismissed for not being timely filed. Therefore, the Board dismissed the reconsideration petition and denied the removal petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLabor CodeWCABWCJ's ReportPrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gallagher v. Moreschi

This legal order, which was appealed from, has been unanimously modified. The modification specifically grants an examination concerning multiple enumerated items, ranging from item 3 to item 26. Following this modification, the order was affirmed, and costs along with disbursements were awarded to the appellants. The decision explicitly states that no opinion was provided, and the exact date for the examination is to be determined in a subsequent order.

Examination GrantedOrder ModifiedAffirmed DecisionAppellate CostsDisbursements AwardedPanel DecisionNo Judicial OpinionProcedural OrderItems of ExaminationAppellants' Favor
References
0
Case No. ADJ2423806 (LAO 0883885)
Regular
Feb 11, 2010

BASIL PERKINS vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior finding of an industrial injury. The Board found that the applicant, an animal control officer, was injured while off-duty and resting in his employer's vehicle after his shift. Crucially, the applicant was neither a peace officer under Government Code section 50920 nor acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the shooting. Therefore, his injury did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial injuryPeace officerCourse of employmentProximate causeLabor Code section 3600Labor Code section 3600.2Government Code section 50920Penal Code section 830.9Animal control officer
References
3
Case No. ADJ9499569
Regular
Sep 11, 2018

CHRIS HENDERSON vs. CDCR - CORCORAN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, increasing the applicant's permanent disability rating from 16% to 26%. This revision was based on incorporating the agreed medical evaluator's findings of a 14% upper extremity impairment due to decreased shoulder range of motion, which the original rating had omitted. The Board also noted the WCJ's rating instructions did not comply with established precedent regarding listing all impairments. The decision otherwise affirmed the WCJ's findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCDCR - Corcoran State PrisonState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent Disability RatingAgreed Medical EvaluatorOrthopedistEugene HarrisM.D.Temporary Disability Indemnity
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 113 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