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. ADJ1895769 (OAK 0305869)
Regular
Aug 24, 2016

CATHERINE BURNHAM vs. MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal, finding jurisdiction over a dispute regarding the cost of specialized prosthetic braces (IDEOs), which a prior judge erroneously sent for Independent Bill Review. The WCAB determined that Labor Code section 4603.6 did not apply as there was no billable service in the conventional sense. Following a Commissioners' Conference, the parties entered stipulations for the provision of the braces, payment of fees according to the CA fee schedule, and resolution of associated penalties. The WCAB approved these stipulations, resolving the parties' dispute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalOrder Taking Off CalendarJurisdictionLabor Code 4603.6Independent Bill ReviewIntrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal OrthosisIDEO bracesMedical Fee ScheduleLabor Code 4603.2
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01159
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Matter of American Bridge Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a lower court's decision denying American Bridge Company's (AB) petition to annul a determination by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). AB, a contractor for the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), sought additional compensation for redesigning a protective shield on the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge due to a discrepancy in vertical clearance measurements. However, the contract explicitly required AB to verify all existing dimensions, noting that DOT's figures were approximate. The court concluded that the contract unambiguously placed the responsibility for verifying dimensions on the contractor, and DOT had not made any bad faith misrepresentations, thereby affirming the denial of additional costs.

Contract DisputeConstruction ContractPublic WorksContract InterpretationRisk AllocationField MeasurementsBid DocumentsMisrepresentationAdministrative AppealArticle 78 Proceeding
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Fay & Signal-Stat Corp.

This case involves a dispute stemming from a stipulation made on August 7, 1952, between a petitioner (union) and a respondent (employer). The stipulation concerned the reinstatement of an employee named Pagan on probation in the employer's screw driver department. It was agreed that if Pagan's production fell below a certain standard, the matter would be submitted to arbitration. On December 18, 1952, the employer demanded arbitration regarding their right to discharge Pagan for non-compliance with the stipulation. The petitioner appealed an order denying a motion to stay arbitration. The court affirmed the order, stating that the August 7, 1952, stipulation did not intend to limit the arbitrator's authority, allowing the arbitrator to determine the resolution of the dispute, which could include Pagan's transfer or discharge.

arbitrationunionemployeremployeestipulationdischargeprobationproduction disputearbitrator authorityappeal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kowalski v. Fisher 40th & 3rd Co.

The case involves an appeal by UNESCO, Inc., a third-party defendant, against an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The lower court granted the plaintiff's motion to estop UNESCO from denying a stipulation to add its Workers' Compensation Law lien to a jury's damage award, and entered judgment against UNESCO. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order but reversed the judgment, vacated the order, and denied the plaintiff's motion. The appellate court found no evidence of a written or open-court stipulation and no reliance by the plaintiff on the alleged stipulation, thus concluding that the Supreme Court erred in applying estoppel. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationStipulationEstoppelAppealJudgment ReversalCPLRAppellate ProcedureThird-Party ActionLien
References
6
Case No. ADJ7412016
Regular
May 10, 2011

DORIS CORTES vs. BANK OF THE WEST, ESIS

This case involves an applicant who sustained bilateral wrist and elbow injuries but experienced no lost time from work. The applicant stipulated to zero permanent disability, though the WCJ ordered an Almaraz/Guzman assessment, which the defendant sought to rescind. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and will approve the stipulations unless the applicant objects within twenty days. The Board found the stipulations adequate based on the record and the applicant's continued employment.

WCABPetition for RemovalAlmaraz/Guzman assessmentStipulations with Request for Awardpermanent disability ratingobjective findings of impairmentqualified medical evaluator (QME)American Medical Association Guidesmandatory settlement conference (MSC)rescinded order
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2004

Claim of Mickens v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant suffered a work-related injury in 1993 and subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. A stipulation agreement between the claimant and employer, which adjusted weekly awards and set future payments, was approved by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. The claimant appealed this decision to the Workers’ Compensation Board, asserting the stipulation's invalidity, inadequate legal representation, and excessive counsel fees. The Board upheld the WCLJ's decision and denied the claimant's request for reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding the stipulation binding and the counsel fee award within the Board's discretion, and no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration.

Stipulation AgreementCounsel FeesBoard ReviewAppellate ReviewPsychological ImpairmentsWork-related InjuryDecision AffirmedDiscretionary PowersLegal RepresentationBenefit Adjustment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 1998

Stoll v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

This case concerns an appeal regarding a stipulation of settlement in a personal injury claim, involving a workers' compensation lien. The plaintiff initially refused to sign the release, asserting that his continuing workers' compensation benefits should remain unaffected, contrary to his attorney's counsel. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion to enforce the settlement and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to vacate it. The Appellate Division reversed this order, finding that the plaintiff's attorney, despite a factual dispute over actual authority, possessed apparent authority to enter into the settlement. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motion to enforce the stipulation and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LienStipulation of SettlementAttorney AuthorityApparent AuthorityMediationVacate StipulationAppellate ReviewNew York LawContract Enforcement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1998

Bouloy v. Peters

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the petitioners' application to vacate a stipulation of discontinuance. The application was found untimely, having been filed more than two years after the petitioners became aware of the grounds for vacatur, despite the stipulation being signed much earlier in June 1993. Additionally, the court noted that any action by petitioner Hardie Bouloy against respondent Peters would be barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, as the injury occurred during employment by a co-worker operating a vehicle owned by Peters. The order was unanimously affirmed.

Stipulation of DiscontinuanceVacatur ApplicationTimelinessWorkers' Compensation LawCo-worker InjuryEmployment InjuryVehicle AccidentAppellate ReviewSupreme Court DecisionAffirmed Judgment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doyle v. City of New York

Plaintiff initiated a civil rights action against the City of New York, individual police officers, and Centre Firearms Co., Inc. following an alleged assault, false arrest, and malicious prosecution in 1982. Plaintiff sought to vacate a stipulation of discontinuance, claiming it was mistakenly applied to all defendants instead of only Centre Firearms. District Judge MacMAHON denied the plaintiff's motion, finding that the alleged mistakes by counsel were not grounds for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1). The court further awarded $500 in attorneys' fees to the defendants, noting that vacating the stipulation would not benefit the plaintiff as the federal claims lacked merit and state claims were time-barred.

Civil Rights ActionMotion to VacateStipulation of DiscontinuanceFed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)Excusable NeglectAttorneys' Fees AwardedPendent JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsFalse ArrestMalicious Prosecution
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,610 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