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. 5753-13
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2018

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Any-Time Home Care, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) initiated a main action against former members of the insolvent Healthcare Industry Trust of New York (HITNY) to recover a significant deficit. These defendants subsequently commenced a third-party action against an auditor, an actuary, and individuals associated with the trust administrator for indemnity and contribution. The third-party defendants sought to coordinate this new action with existing coordinated cases related to the collapse of other CRM-administered trusts and to stay it pending judicial approval of their settlements with the WCB. The Supreme Court, Albany County, concluded that the third-party action is a 'related matter' subject to a prior coordination order. Consequently, the court ordered the third-party action to be coordinated and stayed, pending the determination of an Article 77 Proceeding concerning the Board's settlements.

Coordination of ActionsStay of ProceedingsThird-Party LitigationGroup Self-Insured Trusts (GSITs)Trust InsolvencyWorkers' Compensation Law (WCL)Joint and Several LiabilitySettlement AgreementsArticle 77 ProceedingLitigation Coordinating Panel
References
4
Case No. ADJ9091836
Regular
May 09, 2018

CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS (Deceased), AMY DOUGLAS (Surviving Spouse Guardian Ad Litem) vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND (Claims Administrator)

This case involves a dispute over workers' compensation death benefits for the dependents of a deceased CalFIRE engineer/paramedic. The appeals board is reconsidering a prior decision that awarded benefits but ordered coordination with CalPERS special death benefits. The central issue is whether workers' compensation death benefits should be awarded to the decedent's children, considering they already receive CalPERS benefits, and how to properly coordinate these two types of benefits. The Board rescinded the prior decision and returned the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for proper joinder of CalPERS and a careful consideration of coordination rules.

WCABCalFIRESCIFCalPERSDeath BenefitsSpecial Death BenefitAntrimThompsonCoordination of BenefitsGuardian Ad Litem
References
4
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 03740 [139 AD3d 855]
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2016

Matter of Headley v. Headley

This case involves an appeal by Amalia Headley (mother) against Wayne Headley (father) concerning a Supreme Court order that mandated equal sharing of parenting coordinator fees. The parties, who divorced in 2008, shared joint legal custody of their child. Following disputes over visitation and the father's motion to modify custody, a parenting coordinator was appointed to mediate and oversee the parenting plan. The Supreme Court directed both parties to share the coordinator's costs equally to ensure shared responsibility. The mother subsequently moved to vacate this directive, citing financial hardship. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, emphasizing that in the absence of clear indication that one party was more culpable than the other, fees should be shared equally. The court also found no evidence that the lower court failed to consider the parties' financial situations.

Family LawCustody DisputeVisitation RightsParenting CoordinatorAppellate ReviewFinancial ResponsibilityChild's Best InterestsMatrimonial LawDivorce ProceedingsCourt Fees
References
5
Case No. 534726
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Tulio Serrata

Tulio Serrata, a detective sergeant, was injured in a car accident while en route to the police precinct to pick up a police vehicle for a grand larceny investigation he was coordinating while on standby. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which was initially established by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) but later reversed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board ruled that his injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment and that the special errand exception did not apply. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, determining that the claimant was engaged in a special errand by being called in early to coordinate an investigation, thereby altering his usual temporal travel scheme and bringing him within the scope of employment under the Workers' Compensation Law. The case is now remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this Court's decision.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Errand ExceptionArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentCommuting InjuryPolice OfficerDetective SergeantVehicle AccidentGrand Larceny InvestigationStandby Duty
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peres v. Oceanside Union Free School District

Mary Peres, a high school teacher and Student Projects Coordinator for over thirty years, sued Oceanside Union Free School District, Herbert R. Brown, Dorie C. Ciulla, and Richard Roschelle. Peres alleged violations of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, age discrimination under the ADEA and NYSHRL, and state law claims including breach of contract and defamation. Her claims stem from her termination as SP Coordinator, which she attributes to reporting financial improprieties by other District employees and age discrimination, as well as being coerced into signing a disciplinary letter. Defendant Roschelle moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted dismissal of Peres's ADEA claims, Section 1983 claims based on deprivation of property interest, breach of contract, and defamation claims. However, the court denied dismissal of her NYSHRL claims and Section 1983 claims based on First Amendment retaliation and deprivation of a protected liberty interest.

Age DiscriminationFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessRetaliationWhistleblowerSection 1983Employment LawMotion to DismissNYSHRL
References
30
Case No. ADJ4160985 (LAO 0826527)
Regular
Apr 15, 2020

FERNANDO OLIVARES vs. PERSONNEL COORDINATORS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision to dismiss a lien claimant's lien with prejudice due to laches. The Board found that the defendant failed to meet their burden of proof to establish prejudice from the lien claimant's delay. Therefore, the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the laches defense and other appropriate issues.

Lien claimantLachesPrejudiceDue diligenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code section 4903.8(d)Equitable powersBurden of proof
References
3
Case No. ADJ4137704 (ANA 0343896) ADJ3434427 (ANA 0343894)
Regular
May 25, 2010

CATHY HOLDEN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH-METROPOLITAN STATE HOSPITAL, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

This case involves denied reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order. The Board affirmed the finding that the applicant was entitled to Soma and Valium based on her physician's opinion. Additionally, the Board upheld the appointment of a Nurse Practitioner to coordinate the applicant's complex medication regimen and aid in cost reduction. Defendant's arguments regarding due process, utilization review, and the physician's opinion were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundAdjusting AgencyReconsideration DeniedMedical OpinionPain ManagementNurse Case ManagerUtilization ReviewPre-Trial Conference Statement
References
0
Case No. ADJ1576904 (MON 0349581) ADJ4588351 (MON 0349580)
Regular
Jul 02, 2013

MICHAEL DANKS vs. WARNER BROTHERS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

This case involves applicant Michael Danks' petition to limit the scope of a workers' compensation trial, arguing only discovery and transportation expenses should be litigated. The Appeals Board denied the petition, upholding the WCJ's decision to allow trial on all issues. The Board recommended the WCJ consider applicant's financial hardship, potentially allowing telephone appearance and coordinating medical evaluations to minimize travel costs. It also noted that Almaraz-Guzman analysis is optional and other issues may be decided even if permanent disability isn't resolved.

Petition for RemovalTransportation ExpensesMedical EvaluationQualified Medical EvaluatorAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMA GuidesAlmaraz-GuzmanPermanent DisabilityDiscovery IssuesContinual Trial
References
1
Case No. ADJ7026270
Regular
Dec 13, 2010

NORRIS COOPER vs. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, JT2 INTEGRATED RESOURCES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration regarding applicant Norris Cooper's temporary disability indemnity rate. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that Cooper was entitled to temporary disability at two-thirds of his average weekly earnings ($1,356.06), resulting in a rate of $904.04 per week. The Board found that Education Code sections 44043 and 45192 coordinate leave benefits with temporary disability to maintain full pay but do not limit the actual temporary disability rate itself. Therefore, Cooper's entitlement to temporary disability was not restricted to his base salary.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardOakland Unified School DistrictJT2 Integrated ResourcesPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityLabor Code section 4453Education Code section 44043Classified EmployeeAverage Weekly EarningsBase Salary
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tillman v. Verizon New York, Inc.

Marlayna Tillman, a temporary Verizon employee, sued her employer and supervisors for disability discrimination under federal, state, and city human rights laws. She alleged failure to accommodate her bilateral tennis elbow injury with light duty and retaliatory termination after her three-year temporary term. The court found Tillman did not have a reasonable expectation of permanent employment and failed to adhere to established procedures for requesting accommodation through MetLife, which coordinated her disability benefits. Consequently, the Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing Tillman's federal claims, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state and city law claims.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentFailure to AccommodateRetaliation ClaimTemporary Employment TerminationLight Duty RefusalBilateral Tennis Elbow
References
53
Showing 1-10 of 47 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