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

Waldron v. Wild

Daniel J. Waldron sued Michael P. Wild for personal injuries from a May 25, 1980 car accident. Waldron, a passenger, sustained facial lacerations. Wild moved for summary judgment, arguing Waldron's injuries were not 'serious' under Insurance Law § 671, subdivision 4, lacking 'significant disfigurement.' Special Term granted the motion, dismissing the complaint. Waldron appealed, asserting his half-centimeter forehead scar and nasal prominence constituted significant disfigurement. The appellate court examined medical reports and the definition of 'significant disfigurement,' noting it's a factual issue often requiring visual assessment. The court adopted a jury instruction defining it as a condition a reasonable person would find unattractive, objectionable, or pitiable. Concluding that Waldron demonstrated a triable issue of fact, the appellate court reversed Special Term's decision, denying the summary judgment motion.

NegligencePersonal InjuryCar AccidentFacial InjuriesSignificant DisfigurementNo-Fault LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceScarring
References
13
Case No. ADJ1260866 (LAO 0864160) ADJ985895 (LAO 0864161)
Regular
Dec 28, 2011

GERALD MAYES vs. BIG LOTS; SEDGWICK CMS

The Applicant, Gerald Mayes, sought removal of a trial setting order, arguing the defendant's readiness declaration was insufficient and his medical condition had significantly worsened post-AME. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for removal. This dismissal was primarily based on the applicant's failure to verify the petition, a mandatory requirement. Even if verified, the WCAB would have denied the petition as the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or significant prejudice.

Petition for RemovalUnverified PetitionDeclaration of ReadinessPermanent and StationaryAME ReportCervical ConditionSurgeryIrreparable HarmSignificant PrejudiceMinute Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ3192115 SBR 0342658
Regular
Apr 30, 2012

YONIR ALARCON vs. STELLAR ENTERPRISES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, finding that the WCJ's order to take the case off calendar for further discovery regarding denied body parts was an interlocutory order, not subject to reconsideration. The Board found significant prejudice and irreparable harm to the defendant if the applicant was allowed further discovery after significant delays and prior medical evaluations. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order, dismissed the petition for reconsideration, and returned the matter to the trial level for a mandatory settlement conference and further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalOrder Taking Off Calendardenied body partsPanel Qualified Medical EvaluationsPetition for ReconsiderationInterlocutory Orderssignificant prejudiceirreparable harmDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement Conference
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dumas v. Wyeth

Plaintiff Richard Dumas brought an action against his former employer, Wyeth, for fraudulent concealment, alleging that Wyeth failed to disclose significant changes in his benefits and 'at will' employment status upon his promotion to a management position. Dumas claimed this omission led to his termination after a serious car accident, as his disability leave benefits were significantly shorter than those afforded to union members. Wyeth filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted Wyeth's motion, concluding that Dumas could not reasonably claim reliance on the alleged omissions given his opportunities to inquire, nor was there sufficient evidence to establish Wyeth's intent to defraud.

Fraudulent ConcealmentSummary JudgmentEmployment LawAt-Will EmploymentEmployee BenefitsSeniority RightsDisability LeaveCollective Bargaining AgreementRelianceScienter
References
13
Case No. ADJ9585531
Regular
Aug 28, 2017

Andres Reyes vs. PT WELDING INC.; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY PASADENA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Applicant Andres Reyes's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final interlocutory discovery order. The WCAB also denied Applicant's petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and directed the parties to resolve the discovery dispute through the Administrative Director. The original order denied Applicant's motion to quash a subpoena for his entire school records from iLearn Institute, which Applicant argued was irrelevant and invaded his privacy. Applicant's petition was dismissed as reconsideration is improper for non-final orders, and his removal petition was denied as he failed to demonstrate significant prejudice.

WACABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNon-final OrderInterlocutory OrderDiscovery OrderMotion to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumPrivacySignificant Prejudice
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cangemi v. Cole

In this automobile negligence action, the defendant appealed the Special Term's denial of their motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102. The appellate court reviewed physician reports which indicated the plaintiff's only significant injury was to the shoulder. While there was initial pain, the plaintiff achieved full passive and active range of motion within seven months, with no expected permanency and no loss of regular work duties. Consequently, the court found that the plaintiff did not suffer a 'significant limitation of use of a body function or system' and unanimously reversed the Special Term's order, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentAutomobile NegligenceSerious InjuryInsurance LawShoulder InjuryAppellate ReversalMotion GrantedNo Permanent InjuryRange of MotionOnondaga County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 1994

Raponi v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc.

Petitioner Eugene D. Raponi, a quadriplegic due to a work-related motor vehicle accident, along with his wife Marcia Raponi, settled a personal injury action for $100,000. The respondents, who provided workers' compensation benefits, consented to the settlement but maintained their lien. Petitioners sought to apportion the settlement proceeds, with Marcia Raponi seeking the majority due to her substantial uncompensated care for her husband. The Supreme Court granted the apportionment, finding her services exceeded the settlement value and would have otherwise required significant workers' compensation payments. This decision was affirmed on appeal, stating it prevented a double recovery while acknowledging the wife's significant uncompensated loss.

Settlement ApportionmentLoss of ConsortiumCatastrophic InjuryWorkers' Compensation LienPersonal Injury SettlementSpousal CareEquitable ApportionmentAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionDouble Recovery Prevention
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1989

Schmidt v. Schmidt

The case involves an appeal by a plaintiff wife from a judgment in a divorce action regarding her defendant husband's right to reside in a marital residence apartment. The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially allowed the husband to remain, and this decision was affirmed on appeal. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion, citing Domestic Relations Law § 234 and emphasizing the trial court's broad authority in matrimonial actions. Key factors included the speculative nature of the wife's expert testimony regarding potential harm to children and the husband's financial inability to secure alternative housing without significantly impacting child support payments. The court considered the financial circumstances of both parties and the children's needs in fashioning an equitable remedy, allowing the husband to contribute more significantly to support if he remained in the apartment.

DivorceAncillary ReliefMarital ResidenceChild SupportFinancial CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionExpert TestimonyQueens CountyFamily Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanchez v. TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC.

Plaintiff Natividad Sanchez was injured in a car accident on March 3, 2003, caused by another driver. She sought insurance benefits under a Supplemental Uninsured/Uninsured Motorist (SUM) policy issued by the Defendants, who are insurers. Sanchez claimed serious injuries, including the aggravation of a pre-existing degenerative disc disease, which significantly limited her daily activities and ability to work. The Court granted Sanchez's motions for partial summary judgment, affirming that the other driver's negligence caused the accident and that she sustained a 'serious injury' under New York Insurance Law § 5102(d) under the 'permanent consequential limitation' and 'significant limitation' categories. The Defendants' cross-motion for partial summary judgment was granted in part regarding 'permanent loss of use' but denied concerning the '90/180 day limitation' category.

Insurance BenefitsAutomobile PolicySUM PolicySerious Injury ThresholdNew York Insurance LawPermanent Consequential LimitationSignificant Limitation of UseSummary JudgmentPre-existing Condition AggravationMedical Testimony
References
26
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06061 [165 AD3d 117]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2018

Mananghaya v. Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. Ctr.

Decedent Tristan Michael Mananghaya was killed while disconnecting a rented chiller from Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center's air conditioning system. Plaintiffs, Mananghaya's wife and children, sought damages under Labor Law § 240 (1). The primary issue on appeal was whether the work performed constituted an 'alteration' under the statute. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the motion court's decision, finding that the complex process of integrating and de-integrating the chiller, which significantly affected the hospital's crucial building-wide cooling system, indeed qualified as an alteration. The court emphasized that a change in structural integrity is not always required for Labor Law § 240 (1) coverage, especially when a significant building system's function is altered. Consequently, plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was granted, and defendants' motions for dismissal were denied.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Alteration of structureConstruction accidentFalling objectSummary judgmentAppellate reviewChiller installationAir conditioning systemIndustrial accidentWorker fatality
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 1,413 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