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
Sep 23, 1998

Rodgers v. 72nd Street Associates

This opinion details the court's application of CPLR article 50-B for structuring periodic payments of future damages awarded to plaintiffs Frank and Kathleen Rodgers. Following a jury verdict where the Rodgers prevailed in their accident claims against the defendant, the court addressed complex calculations for past and future pain and suffering, lost wages, and annuity losses, accounting for Mr. Rodgers' comparative negligence. Justice Solomon resolved disputes regarding the discounting of lump-sum future awards, determined attorney's fees on periodic payments, and established appropriate discount rates based on actuarial practices and Treasury note rates. The final judgment specifies the amounts for past and future damages, attorney's fees for future payments, and the present value of the annuity contract the defendant is required to purchase.

periodic paymentsCPLR article 50-Bfuture damagesattorney's feeslump-sum awardsdiscount ratesannuity contractcomparative negligencepersonal injurystructured settlements
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Society of New York Hospital v. Bernstein

James Rodgers, on behalf of his son John Rodgers, sought medical assistance benefits (Medicaid), which were denied by the New York City Department of Social Services. This denial was affirmed by Barbara Blum, Acting Commissioner of the Department of Social Services of the State of New York, on January 3, 1978, following a fair hearing. The court unanimously annulled this administrative determination, finding it lacked substantial evidence. The 'evidence' presented at the fair hearing consisted of unsubstantiated Agency documents and testimony from a social worker without personal knowledge of the facts. The court emphasized that administrative decisions, while not bound by strict rules of evidence, must be supported by evidence acceptable in a court of law. Consequently, the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

Medicaid benefitsdenial of benefitsfair hearingsubstantial evidenceadministrative determinationannulmentremandsocial servicesmedical assistancelack of evidence
References
4
Case No. ADJ7063179
Regular
Sep 12, 2011

LORRAINE RODGERS vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

In this case, the applicant, Lorraine Rodgers, sustained an industrial knee injury as a deputy sheriff. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's award of 34% permanent disability. The defendant challenged the rating, arguing the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) report lacked substantial evidence and failed to rebut the standard disability schedule. The WCAB found the AME's rationale for using a gait disorder table, supported by the applicant's subjective complaints and objective findings, provided sufficient justification for deviating from standard ratings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy SheriffIndustrial InjuryKneesPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Whole Person Impairment (WPI)2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent DisabilitiesPrimary Treating PhysicianAMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment
References
5
Case No. ADJ9226526
Regular
Dec 04, 2020

MARIE RODGERS vs. SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SCHOOLS INSURANCE AUTHORITY

This case concerns the proper calculation of permanent disability ratings in a workers' compensation claim. The applicant, Marie Rodgers, injured her lumbar spine, left leg, left hip, and left knee. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and amended the prior decision. The WCAB affirmed the finding of 24% permanent disability but corrected the indemnity amount to reflect the 2013 date of injury and an adjusted attorney fee. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning that impairments within the same body region must be combined first, utilizing the AMA Guides' Combined Values Chart, before combining with impairments from other regions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationReport of WCJAMA GuidesCombined Values ChartPermanent ImpairmentLeft Lower ExtremityLumbar SpineApportionmentDate of Injury
References
2
Case No. ADJ9696105 ADJ9696106 ADJ9696107
Regular
Oct 18, 2017

WILISHA RODGERS vs. ALTA BATES SUMMIT MEDICAL CENTER, SUTTER HEALTH WC

This case involves applicant Wilisha Rodgers' petition for reconsideration after her workers' compensation cases were dismissed for failure to appear at a mandatory settlement conference. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the dismissal orders, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The dismissal was based on applicant's failure to provide good cause for her absence, but the Board found she misunderstood the request due to potential mail delivery issues and confusion regarding prior appointments. The Board emphasized the importance of accurate contact information and proper service of notices.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Affirming DismissalMandatory Settlement ConferenceNotice of Intention to DismissGood CauseApplicant's ObjectionCumulative TraumaPsyche InjuryOfficial Address Record
References
3
Case No. ADJ10321458, ADJ10211354
Regular
Nov 20, 2017

JORGE GALVAN vs. DORADO DESIGN CONSTRUTCTION, INC, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves applicant Jorge Galvan's petition for reconsideration before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board is dismissing the petition because it was filed without proof of service on an adverse party, Solimon Rodgers, as required by Labor Code Section 5905. The failure to provide proof of service is sufficient grounds for dismissal. Even if not dismissed on procedural grounds, the petition would have been denied on its merits based on the judge's report.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationProof of ServiceAdverse PartyDismissalLabor Code § 5905Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeDorado Design ConstructionState Compensation Insurance FundSolimon Rodgers
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2015

GATTI, SARAHANN v. SCHWAB, RODGER J.

This case involves an appeal from an order denying summary judgment in an action for damages related to serious injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff Sarahann Gatti alleged serious injuries, while the unnamed defendant contended that her spinal injuries were pre-existing from an earlier work-related incident. The Supreme Court's order was modified on appeal, with the appellate court granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the 90/180-day serious injury claim, a category the plaintiff had abandoned. However, the denial of summary judgment for other serious injury categories was affirmed, as the plaintiff successfully raised a triable issue of fact concerning causation through her treating orthopedic surgeon's opinion. The surgeon's testimony attributed Gatti's C6-7 disc injury and the aggravation of pre-existing neck and lower back issues to the accident in question, thus presenting a genuine issue for the trier of fact to resolve.

Motor vehicle accidentSerious injurySummary judgmentCausationSpinal injuriesDisc injuryAggravation of injuryOrthopedic surgeonWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rodgers v. New York City Fire Department

The claimant, a civil employee of the New York City Fire Department, filed for workers' compensation benefits after developing several medical conditions, including bronchitis, gastroesophageal reflux, and PTSD, attributed to cleaning and repairing fire trucks following the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks. Initially, a workers’ compensation law judge found the claim timely, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, ruling it time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28. On appeal, the court found the Board's determination of the filing date unsupported by the record, necessitating a remittal for further proceedings to ascertain the actual filing date. The court affirmed the Board's interpretation that the World Trade Center cleanup exception (Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A) is geographically limited, but remitted for a determination on whether specific work performed by the claimant at the actual World Trade Center site qualified for this exception.

World Trade Center Cleanup9/11 Related IllnessWorkers' Compensation Law § 28Statute of LimitationsTimeliness of ClaimOccupational DiseaseRespiratory DysfunctionGastroesophageal RefluxPosttraumatic Stress DisorderStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 1994

Lawson v. Getty Terminals Corp.

Plaintiff Fred A. Lawson, an African-American male, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Getty Terminals Corp. and Gordon Rodgers, alleging racial discrimination in promotion opportunities and wrongful termination, as well as retaliation for internal complaints. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court found that Lawson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, disparate impact, or retaliation. Specifically, the court noted Lawson's poor job performance and that he was replaced by another African-American male. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint in its entirety, including all associated state law claims.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 198142 U.S.C. § 1983RetaliationDisparate ImpactPrima Facie CaseJob Performance
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goodale v. Astrue

Plaintiff Rodger Goo-dale applied for supplemental security income (SSI) and disability insurance benefits (DIB), which were denied. He sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision, alleging inability to work since October 2005 due to physical impairments. Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini reviewed the case, addressing Plaintiff's arguments concerning the ALJ's evaluation of his HIV impairment, residual functional capacity (RFC) determination, credibility assessment, and analysis of his past relevant work. The court found that the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence, upholding the ALJ's findings. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and Plaintiff's motion was denied.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security IncomeDisability Insurance BenefitsHIV ImpairmentChronic FatigueResidual Functional CapacityALJ Decision ReviewSubstantial EvidenceTreating Physician RuleCredibility Assessment
References
61
Showing 1-10 of 11 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