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

In re Commissioner of Social Services

The Commissioner of the Erie County Department of Social Services appealed an order by Family Court Judge John J. Honan. Judge Honan's order required the Commissioner to show cause why they should not be held in contempt and relieved of child protection responsibility, following an incident where a child in their custody was briefly abducted by her mother. The Commissioner's motion to vacate this show cause order was denied by the Family Court. On appeal, the higher court unanimously reversed the denial, finding no evidence of contempt against the Commissioner. The appellate court also clarified that Family Court lacks the authority to divest the Department of Social Services of its statutory responsibilities for child protection under the Social Services Law.

Child ProtectionSocial Services LawContempt of CourtShow Cause OrderJudicial AuthorityFamily Court JurisdictionAppellate ReviewChild AbductionFoster CareStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2006

Hatfill v. Foster

This decision and order revisits the choice of substantive law in a libel case filed by Dr. Steven Hatfill against Conde Nast Publications, Donald Foster, and The Reader's Digest Association, concerning articles published about the 2001 anthrax attacks. Initially, the court had determined Virginia law applied. However, after further jurisdictional discovery revealed that plaintiff Hatfill had made misrepresentations about his domicile, the court reversed its prior ruling. It concluded that Hatfill was domiciled in Washington D.C. at the time of the articles' publication, and therefore, Washington D.C. law will govern the substantive issues for all defendants. Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause why their pro hac vice status should not be revoked due to these alleged misrepresentations and omissions of material facts regarding their client's domicile.

LibelDefamationChoice of LawDomicile DeterminationJurisdictional DiscoveryMisrepresentation to CourtPro Hac Vice RevocationForum ShoppingSingle Publication RuleConflict of Laws
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGinn v. Morrin

This order addresses the defendants' motion to vacate and set aside the service of various legal documents, including an order to show cause, affidavit, summons, and verified complaint. The court unanimously affirmed the denial of the defendants' motion. The decision included an award of twenty dollars in costs and disbursements. Defendants were also granted leave to answer within twenty days after the service of the order, contingent upon the payment of the aforementioned costs.

Motion to VacateService of ProcessOrder to Show CauseVerified ComplaintCosts and DisbursementsAffirmation of OrderLeave to Answer
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. ADJ3659496
Regular
Aug 01, 2013

ISIDORO BASTIDA vs. MAINSTAY BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS' SECURITY FUND, METRO RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. This extraordinary remedy was denied because the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board affirmed the denial of the defendant's second Petition for Dismissal, finding it improper as a new notice was required after the applicant's opportunity to show good cause had already passed. The case will return to the trial calendar, where it should be dismissed unless the applicant shows good cause.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DismissalCalifornia Self-Insurers' Security Fundsubstantial prejudiceirreparable injurygood causetrial calendarmandatory settlement conferencethirty day notice letteradministrative law judge
References
4
Case No. ADJ7709362
Regular
Dec 05, 2011

Gloria Kudelko vs. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal and reassignment of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board matter. The defendant sought removal of an order from August 9, 2011, which scheduled trial, ordered a claims adjuster to appear, and ordered her to show cause for failing to appear at a prior conference. The Board granted the petition, rescinded the August 9, 2011 order, and returned the case for reassignment to a different WCJ for trial. The Board also stated the current WCJ should proceed with the sanctions issue, allowing the adjuster an opportunity to show good cause for her non-appearance.

Petition for RemovalWCJ SanctionClaims Adjuster AppearanceReassignment WCJMandatory Settlement ConferenceShow Cause OrderIndustrial InjuryWCAB Rule 10453Interlocutory OrderPetition for Reassignment
References
0
Case No. ADJ4511531 (LAO 0860156)
Regular
Dec 16, 2010

LEE HARPER vs. KING DREW MEDICAL CENTER, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves a lien claimant, VQ OrthoCare, whose litigation manager inadvertently checked the wrong box on an electronic filing form, requesting a "Status Conference" instead of a "Lien Conference." The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) issued an Order to Show Cause why sanctions should not be imposed for this error and for allegedly filing a false declaration regarding settlement. The Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petition for removal, finding the WCJ's order to be an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision subject to reconsideration. Ultimately, the Board rescinded the order to show cause and dismissed the petition for reconsideration, deeming the error excusable and lacking legal basis for sanctions.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder to Show CauseSanctionsLien ClaimantDeclaration of ReadinessStatus ConferenceLien ConferenceEAMS
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prendeville v. United States

This case involves a plaintiff suing the United States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for injuries sustained by John Prendeville at a VA Hospital, leading to paralysis. The defendants moved to dismiss the first cause of action, arguing that the plaintiff's complaint was untimely under the FTCA's two-year statute of limitations, claiming the cause of action accrued shortly after Prendeville's injury in September 1981. The court examined the accrual of a claim under the FTCA, which requires the plaintiff to discover both the injury and its cause. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that there was a factual dispute regarding when the plaintiff or Prendeville's family became aware of the alleged cause of the injury, potentially due to misleading statements from medical personnel.

Federal Tort Claims ActStatute of LimitationsMedical MalpracticeAccrual of ClaimSummary Judgment MotionSpinal Cord InjuryVA Hospital NegligenceWrongful Death ClaimIntubation ComplicationsDiscovery Rule
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1990

Giles v. State Division of Human Rights

Respondent Universal Instruments Corporation laid off approximately 1,000 employees due to a drastic reduction in customer orders. Four female employees (petitioners) who were laid off in August 1985 filed discrimination complaints with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging sex and/or age discrimination. The Division conducted investigations and found no probable cause. Petitioners then sought judicial review, and the Supreme Court annulled the Division's determinations, remitting the matters for further proceedings. This appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's judgments, finding that the appropriate standard of review for the Division's no probable cause determinations was whether they were arbitrary and capricious or lacked a rational basis. Applying this standard, the court concluded that the Division rationally found an insufficient factual basis for unlawful discrimination, as the layoffs were due to economic necessity and the need to retain qualified workers, and the investigative process was fair. Therefore, the Division's no probable cause determinations were improperly annulled.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationAge DiscriminationLayoffsEconomic ReasonsProbable CauseJudicial ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardRational Basis ReviewAdministrative Determinations
References
4
Case No. ADJ1220987 (SJO 0262634)
Regular
Nov 17, 2010

RICHARD GILLISPIE vs. PLASTECH, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) appealed an award of benefits to an applicant with a pre-existing disability, arguing a subsequent industrial back injury did not cause pathology in the opposite leg as required by statute. The Appeals Board affirmed the award, finding that Labor Code section 4751 only requires the subsequent injury to "affect" the opposite member, not necessarily cause direct pathology. Evidence showed the applicant's low back injury caused verified radiculopathy and impaired leg function, meeting the statutory requirement. The Board found SIBTF's legal arguments unpersuasive and the WCJ's findings supported by substantial evidence.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundLabor Code section 4751industrial injurylow backradiculopathypermanent disabilityopposite and corresponding memberpathologyAMA GuidesDRE category III
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 5,276 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