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

Personius v. Mann

Plaintiff Hugh Personius, an electric utility employee, was injured when a utility pole erected by defendant John G. Mann broke while Personius was cutting power to a burning barn on Mann's farm. Personius and his wife commenced an action based on common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing all causes of action. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, finding no proof defendants contracted for the work or had notice of Personius's presence for the Labor Law claims. For the negligence claim, the court determined defendants successfully showed that a reasonable visual inspection would not have revealed the pole's defect, and plaintiffs failed to provide counter-evidence.

Utility Pole CollapseLandowner DutyLabor Law ClaimsSummary Judgment GrantPremises LiabilityLatent DefectReasonable Inspection StandardWorker Fall InjuryElectric Service DisconnectionAppellate Affirmation
References
17
Case No. ADJ8496155
Regular
May 16, 2016

EALWINDER MANN (Deceased) MOHINDER MANN (Widow) vs. DARBARA SINGH, DARBARA SINGH Dba D&G TRANSPORT

This case concerns a deceased truck driver, Balwinder Mann, whose widow, Mohinder Mann, is claiming workers' compensation benefits. The defendant, Darbara Singh, dba D&G Transport, appealed a decision finding Mann was an employee and that the statute of limitations did not bar the claim. The defendant argued Mann was an independent contractor due to an agreement and lack of control, and that the claim was time-barred. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's findings that Singh retained sufficient control to establish an employer-employee relationship, and that the defendant's failure to provide a claim form tolled the statute of limitations.

AOE/COEIndependent Contractor AgreementEmployee statusStatute of limitationsRight to controlLabor Code Section 3351Labor Code Section 3357Labor Code Section 3353Borello factorsTruck driver
References
10
Case No. 532944
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Stephen Darcy

Claimant Stephen Darcy sustained a work-related injury to his right shoulder and was awarded benefits by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ). The self-insured employer, Brentwood UFSD et al., appealed this decision to the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board denied the employer's application for review because it failed to completely answer question 15 on the RB-89 form, which required specifying both the objection and the date it was interposed. The employer's subsequent request for reconsideration and/or full Board review was also denied. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed both decisions, holding that the Board acted within its discretion to deny review for non-compliance with its regulations, and that the employer's incomplete response was not cured by information found elsewhere in the application.

Appellate ReviewAdministrative LawBoard DiscretionProcedural ComplianceApplication for ReviewRB-89 FormSchedule Loss of UseRight Arm InjurySelf-Insured EmployerThird-Party Administrator
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Burrick

The respondent, Robert Stephen Burrick, was convicted on January 13, 2003, of federal felonies including mail fraud and interstate transport of stolen property, and sentenced on April 14, 2003. The petitioner contended that these federal felonies were essentially similar to New York felonies, warranting automatic disbarment. Citing Judiciary Law § 90 and precedent, the court found that Burrick's felony conviction resulted in automatic disbarment. Consequently, the petitioner's motion to strike his name from the roll of attorneys was granted, and Robert Stephen Burrick was immediately disbarred and prohibited from practicing law.

DisbarmentAttorney DisciplineFelony ConvictionMail FraudInterstate Transport of Stolen PropertyProfessional MisconductAutomatic DisbarmentNew York LawLegal Ethics
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephens v. Thomas Pub. Co., Inc.

Cynthia C. Stephens, a former marketing manager at Thomas Publishing Company, Inc., filed an employment discrimination lawsuit asserting various claims including disability discrimination under the ADA and FMLA violations. Stephens was diagnosed with breast cancer in January 2000 and subsequently took medical leave. Her employment was terminated in October 2000, with disputes over whether she resigned or was fired. The court granted summary judgment in part and denied in part, dismissing claims related to gender discrimination, actual disability, record of disability, FMLA violations, and retaliation. However, triable issues of fact were found regarding her claims of discrimination based on perceived disability, specifically concerning termination (actual or constructive) and a hostile work environment.

Employment DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActPerceived DisabilityHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentBreast CancerRetaliationGender DiscriminationConstructive DischargeFamily and Medical Leave Act
References
12
Case No. ADJ7772997
Regular
Jan 16, 2014

ADRIAN MANNS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a finding of fact regarding applicant Adrian Manns' cumulative trauma injury. While affirming that Manns sustained an industrial injury, the Board revised the period of injury to end in January 2001, aligning with medical examiner opinions. The Board found insufficient evidence to support the presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code sections 5402 or 3212.10. The amended finding now states the injury occurred up to January 2001, including coccidioidomycosis and meningitis.

CoccidioidomycosisMeningitisCumulative TraumaCorrectional OfficerLabor Code section 5402Labor Code section 3212.10Agreed Medical ExaminersDate of InjuryPresumption of Industrial CausationStatute of Limitation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephens v. Colvin

Plaintiff Duane Stephens sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The U.S. Magistrate Judge found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred at step three by not finding plaintiff's intellectual disability met Listing 12.05(c) and that the ALJ's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) determination was not supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding plaintiff's attention and concentration limitations. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanded the case to the Commissioner for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to re-evaluate adaptive functioning deficits and potentially consult a vocational expert.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeSocial Security ActAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) ReviewAppeals Council ReviewResidual Functional Capacity (RFC)Listing of Impairments (Appendix 1)Intellectual DisabilityAdaptive Functioning DeficitsChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephen v. Sico, Inc.

Plaintiff Jerald V. Stephen, Sr., a custodian, was injured when a folding cafeteria table he was moving bucked and fell on his legs. He and his wife sued the unnamed manufacturer of the table, who then brought a third-party action against the plaintiff's employer, Saratoga Springs School District. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, which the manufacturer appealed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the School District had no duty to train the plaintiff on an obvious task he had performed thousands of times, nor to warn him of the obvious danger of standing in the path of a falling table. The court found no negligence on the part of the School District contributing to the accident.

Summary JudgmentAppealThird-Party ActionDuty to TrainDuty to WarnObvious RiskWorkplace AccidentCustodial WorkFalling ObjectAppellate Division
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2017

Testa v. CareFusion

Stephen Testa, proceeding pro se, sued CareFusion alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and New York Labor Law. Testa, hired at 52 and terminated at 53, claimed his poor job performance was a pretext for age-based termination, citing a younger replacement and supervisor remarks about his "era" and "younger sales manager" skills. CareFusion moved for summary judgment, arguing Testa's termination was solely due to documented poor performance, including failure to meet sales objectives and Performance Improvement Plan requirements. The court found Testa's performance issues undisputed and ruled that the supervisor's alleged stray remarks, made months before termination, were insufficient to establish discriminatory intent. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to CareFusion on the ADEA claim and dismissed the state law claims without prejudice, concluding Testa was fired for poor performance, not age.

Age DiscriminationADEASummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationWrongful TerminationPerformance ManagementPro Se LitigationPretext EvidenceBurden-Shifting FrameworkSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pritchard v. Tully Construction Co.

Stephen Pritchard, a dock builder, was injured when a 300-350 pound motor, unsecured by safety devices, fell on him during a viaduct reconstruction project. He was positioned beneath the motor as coworkers manually attempted to attach it to a pipe. Pritchard and his wife sued the general contractor for violating Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the failure to provide appropriate safety equipment. The Supreme Court initially denied their motion for summary judgment on liability. However, the appellate court reversed, finding the defendant liable for failing to secure the heavy object, and ruled that Pritchard's alleged negligence was not the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Construction accidentGravity hazardFalling objectSummary judgmentLiabilityWorkplace safetyDock builderViaduct reconstructionLack of safety devicesProximate cause
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 168 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