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 10, 1982

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Roberts

ABC, a telecommunications company, was cited for violating Labor Law § 162(3) for not providing a second meal period to employees working specific shifts. ABC challenged the violation, arguing the law did not apply to their industry or skilled workers, and that their collective bargaining agreement waived or substantially complied with the requirement. The Industrial Board of Appeals affirmed the violation, but Special Term annulled this decision, concluding that employees could waive the statutory meal period benefit through their labor contracts. The current court's majority affirmed Special Term's judgment. A dissenting opinion argued that Labor Law § 162(3) is a public policy health measure designed for worker protection and therefore cannot be waived by private agreements or collective bargaining, emphasizing that the statute's 'every person' language applies broadly.

Labor LawMeal PeriodsWaiver of Statutory RightsCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic PolicyTelecommunications IndustryIndustrial CommissionerIndustrial Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
19
Case No. SAC 244211
Regular
Sep 19, 2007

KAREN JEAN KEARNEY (GRANT) vs. WESTAR LINEN SERVICE, CAL COMP INSURANCE/CIGA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Karen Kearney's petition for reconsideration, upholding the prior decision that denied additional temporary disability benefits. The Board found that the requested temporary disability period from April 2003 to May 2004 extended beyond the five-year statutory limit from the date of injury. Previous stipulations clearly defined temporary disability periods, and a worsening condition alone does not establish a new compensable period beyond the statutory limitations.

WCABReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityPetition to ReopenJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsDate of InjuryNew and Further DisabilityStipulations
References
7
Case No. ADJ15278643
Regular
Apr 19, 2023

FRANCIS GOODWIN vs. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued that the Labor Code Section 3212.1 cancer presumption did not apply because the applicant's date of injury was beyond the statutory 105-month extension period following his termination of service. However, the Board found that the applicant's essential thrombocytosis, a bone marrow cancer, developed within the statutory period, even though it manifested later. The Board relied on the IME's opinion that bone marrow cancers generally have a 5-10 year latency period, supporting the applicant's claim that the condition developed during his service.

Cancer presumptionLabor Code 3212.1Essential thrombocytosisLatency periodManifestationDevelopmentReasonable medical probabilityIndependent Medical ExaminerCarcinogen exposureFirefighter
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2008

Westchester Medical Center v. Lincoln General Insurance

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied its motion for summary judgment to recover no-fault medical benefits. The appellate court reversed the order, granting the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated a prima facie case by showing that statutory billing forms were mailed and received, and the defendant failed to either pay or deny the claim within the 30-day period. The court rejected the defendant's arguments that letters advising of an investigation tolled the statutory period and that the period was tolled pending a no-fault application. Additionally, defenses related to Workers' Compensation benefits or the assignor's failure to appear at an examination under oath were found insufficient to defeat the medical provider's right to benefits.

no-fault insurancemedical benefitssummary judgmentinsurance contractstatutory periodtimely denialworkers' compensationpolicy conditionpreclusion remedyappellate review
References
19
Case No. ADJ8363673
Regular
May 06, 2013

DIAHLO WALTON vs. THE REDWOODS GROUP, INC.; YMCA OF THE EAST BAY, SEDGWICK

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendant, The Redwoods Group, Inc., YMCA of the East Bay, and Sedgwick, which has been withdrawn. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was not brought to their attention until after the statutory 60-day period for review had expired. The Board tolled the statutory period due to delayed actual notice of the petition. Consequently, the reconsideration is dismissed as the petitioner withdrew their request.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedTolledStatutory Time PeriodActual NoticeDue ProcessAppeals BoardWorkers' CompensationLabor Code section 5909Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2012

Mehra v. City of New York

Petitioner Sushil Mehra sustained injuries on January 4, 2011, after falling from a scaffold during a construction project while employed by Vardaris Tech, Inc. Petitioners served a notice of claim on the New York City School Construction Authority (NYCSCA) on August 5, 2011, exceeding the statutory 90-day period. The Supreme Court initially granted the petitioners' motion to deem the notice of claim timely served. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding no reasonable excuse for the delay, no actual notice to NYCSCA within the statutory period, and substantial prejudice to NYCSCA due to the delay. Consequently, the motion to deem the notice of claim timely served was denied.

Notice of ClaimTimelinessLate FilingScaffold AccidentWorkers' CompensationPrejudiceActual NoticeGeneral Municipal LawLabor LawNew York City School Construction Authority
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2001

Zeides v. Hebrew Home for Aged At Riverdale, Inc.

The court considered an appeal from an order denying the defendant's summary judgment motion, which sought to dismiss a complaint as time-barred. Plaintiff had alleged violations of the Public Health Law, ordinary negligence, and wrongful death against the defendant nursing home, stemming from a patient's injuries including pressure sores and inadequate nutrition. Defendant argued the claims were medical malpractice, subject to a 2½-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214-a), while plaintiff asserted the statutory claim fell under a 3-year period (CPLR 214 [2]). The court modified the decision, allowing the defendant to renew its motion after further discovery, acknowledging the need for more facts to determine the appropriate statute of limitations for the various claims. A dissenting opinion questioned the majority's decision to independently address the statutory cause of action's limitation period.

statute of limitationssummary judgment motionPublic Health Lawnursing home negligencemedical malpracticeordinary negligencewrongful deathdiscovery processcomplaint amendmentpatient rights
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goulding v. Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Inc.

Pro se plaintiff Mary Goulding sued the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging she was denied job advancement and later terminated due to her age. She had initially filed a complaint with the EEOC in 1984, which was deferred to the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR), where her claim was denied. After her employment was terminated in 1989, Goulding initiated this federal lawsuit. IEEE moved to dismiss claims arising after November 1984, arguing Goulding had not properly filed new EEOC or state claims for these subsequent events or observed the statutory 60-day conciliation period. The court acknowledged Goulding's failure to meet these procedural requirements but, citing precedent, opted to suspend the prematurely filed claims rather than dismiss them, allowing for proper compliance with the statutory waiting periods.

Age discriminationADEASubject matter jurisdictionEEOCState Division of Human RightsProcedural requirementsConciliation periodMotion to dismissEmployment lawFederal court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kuechler v. 805 Middlesex Corp.

Plaintiffs Roger E. Kuechler, L. Cris Collingwood, and Edward Foehlinger filed a diversity suit against 805 Middlesex and Eastman Kodak, alleging personal injuries from keyboard equipment, with Foehlinger claiming loss of consortium. Defendants moved to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. The court, applying New York law, determined that the three-year statute of limitations applies from the time of injury and that the discovery rule under N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 214-c does not apply to repetitive stress injuries from keyboard use. While a single condition doesn't create multiple injuries, qualitatively different injuries occurring within the statutory period could sustain claims. The court conditionally granted the motion to dismiss, allowing plaintiffs 45 days to file an amended complaint alleging such qualitatively different injuries within the statutory period.

Repetitive Strain InjuryStatute of LimitationsProduct LiabilityKeyboard InjuryDiversity JurisdictionMotion to DismissDiscovery RulePersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumNew York Civil Practice Law and Rules
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Texaco Inc.

Texaco Inc. and its two subsidiaries, Texaco Capital Inc. and Texaco Capital N.V., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Texaco sought to extend the exclusive periods for filing a reorganization plan, citing the massive size of the case, over 300,000 creditors, and the pending appeal of a $10.3 billion judgment against it by Pennzoil Company. Pennzoil, a leading general unsecured creditor, moved to reduce these exclusivity periods to propose its own creditor's plan. The court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Howard Schwartzberg, considered the unprecedented size and complexity of Texaco's bankruptcy case, which is the largest ever filed in the U.S., and the unresolved multi-billion dollar Pennzoil judgment. The court found that Texaco had established sufficient cause for an extension, while Pennzoil failed to demonstrate cause for reduction. Consequently, Texaco's motion to extend the exclusivity periods by another 120 and 180 days was granted, and Pennzoil's motion to shorten them was denied.

BankruptcyChapter 11Exclusivity PeriodPlan of ReorganizationCorporate DebtorsComplex LitigationDebtor-Creditor DisputeJudgment AppealSouthern District of New YorkCorporate Restructuring
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 3,417 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