Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ11206337

Regular

Aug 23, 2018

Stephen Rowe vs. Grand Pacific Resort Service, Zenith Insurance

Applicant Stephen Rowe sought reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release, alleging fraud and misrepresentation by the defendants. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration. The WCAB found that Rowe's allegations of fraud, lacking supporting evidence or testimony, were premature for appellate review. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial level for the judge to treat the petition as a motion to set aside, allowing for a hearing and the presentation of evidence.

Stephen RoweGrand Pacific Resort ServiceZenith InsurancePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseWCJin pro percumulative traumaarm and wrist injuryfraud

References

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

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

DISTRICT 65, UAW v. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.

This case addresses a motion by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to appoint a new plan administrator for the Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. Retirement Plan, which was terminated in December 1981. Harper & Row had liquidated the plan, purchased annuities, and recaptured excess contributions, which it used to buy shares from Minneapolis Star & Tribune Company. PBGC contended that Harper & Row's actions in allocating and distributing assets were invalid because they were not carried out by the designated plan administrator. Harper & Row argued that these post-termination activities were ministerial and exempt from ERISA's fiduciary standards. The court ruled that activities taken to implement a plan termination, including selecting an insurer, are discretionary and subject to ERISA's fiduciary standards. However, the court denied PBGC's motion for summary judgment to nullify the entire distribution, stating that Harper & Row assumed a fiduciary role by implementing the termination.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationFiduciary DutyPlan AdministratorAsset AllocationExcess ContributionsSummary Judgment MotionDefined Benefit PlanTrust AgreementStatutory Interpretation

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Showing 1-10 of 169 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ11206337

Regular

Aug 23, 2018

Stephen Rowe vs. Grand Pacific Resort Service, Zenith Insurance

Stephen RoweGrand Pacific Resort ServiceZenith InsurancePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseWCJin pro percumulative traumaarm and wrist injuryfraud

References

Case No. 532944

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 10, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Stephen Darcy

Appellate ReviewAdministrative LawBoard DiscretionProcedural ComplianceApplication for ReviewRB-89 FormSchedule Loss of UseRight Arm InjurySelf-Insured EmployerThird-Party Administrator

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

DISTRICT 65, UAW v. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationFiduciary DutyPlan AdministratorAsset AllocationExcess ContributionsSummary Judgment MotionDefined Benefit PlanTrust AgreementStatutory Interpretation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re Burrick

DisbarmentAttorney DisciplineFelony ConvictionMail FraudInterstate Transport of Stolen PropertyProfessional MisconductAutomatic DisbarmentNew York LawLegal Ethics

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Stephens v. Thomas Pub. Co., Inc.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Stephens v. Colvin

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Stephen v. Sico, Inc.

Summary JudgmentAppealThird-Party ActionDuty to TrainDuty to WarnObvious RiskWorkplace AccidentCustodial WorkFalling ObjectAppellate Division

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 27, 2017

Testa v. CareFusion

Age DiscriminationADEASummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationWrongful TerminationPerformance ManagementPro Se LitigationPretext EvidenceBurden-Shifting FrameworkSupplemental Jurisdiction

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Pritchard v. Tully Construction Co.

Construction accidentGravity hazardFalling objectSummary judgmentLiabilityWorkplace safetyDock builderViaduct reconstructionLack of safety devicesProximate cause

References

Case No. ADJ10837041

Regular

Mar 16, 2026

STEPHEN MERRILL vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

ADJ10837041Petition for RemovalFindings of Fact and Orderpanel qualified medical evaluatorQMEDr. Cao Van Phamsubstantial medical evidenceAOE/COEheart trouble presumptionLabor Code section 3212.2

References

Showing 1-10 of 169 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.