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. ADJ10221665
Regular
Dec 10, 2020

STEPHEN OPPLER vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFIT TRUST FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant, Stephen Oppler, and the Subsequent Injuries Benefit Trust Fund (SIBTF). After the applicant petitioned for reconsideration of an administrative law judge's order, a settlement was reached via Compromise and Release. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the agreement, found the settlement adequate and in the applicant's best interest, and approved it. The WCAB also found the requested attorneys' fee reasonable and rescinded the previous findings while approving the settlement.

Subsequent Injuries Benefit Trust FundCompromise and ReleaseWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJReconsiderationLabor Code section 5001WCAB Rule 10700(b)Labor Code section 5002Attorneys' feeFindings of Fact and Order
References
0
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. 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
Case No. ADJ10837041
Regular
Mar 16, 2026

STEPHEN MERRILL vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

This case involves applicant Stephen Merrill seeking removal of a WCJ's order that found a panel QME's reports unsubstantial. The WCJ deferred the injury AOE/COE issue and ordered further record development. The Appeals Board denied removal, deeming it an extraordinary remedy not warranted here as no irreparable harm was shown and reconsideration remains an adequate remedy. The Board affirmed the WCJ's discretion to develop the record when medical evidence is deficient.

ADJ10837041Petition for RemovalFindings of Fact and Orderpanel qualified medical evaluatorQMEDr. Cao Van Phamsubstantial medical evidenceAOE/COEheart trouble presumptionLabor Code section 3212.2
References
5
Case No. ADJ145246 (AHM 0130547)
Regular
Oct 11, 2010

Stephen Ramirez vs. Nick's Courier, SCIF INSURED GLENDALE

This case involves applicant Stephen Ramirez seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board reviewed the petition and the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, finding no basis for overturning the original ruling. Consequently, the Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the prior decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgedenial of reconsiderationADJ145246State Compensation Insurance FundSCIFNick's CourierStephen RamirezAHM 0130547
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 150 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