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

Video Aid Corp. v. Town of Wallkill

The case discusses whether Video Aid Corp. should be reimbursed for an unconstitutional $27,000 water sewer tap-in fee paid to the Town of Wallkill to obtain a building permit. This dissenting opinion, authored by Bellacosa, J., argues that the Appellate Division's order for reimbursement was correct, stating that the payment was made under legal duress. The dissent highlights that the Town unlawfully exacted the fee, impeding Video Aid's business expansion, and that Video Aid's immediate lawsuit constituted "authentic resistance." It draws on precedents affirming that municipalities cannot manipulate responsibilities for revenue generation and that involuntary payments, even without formal protest, warrant recovery, ultimately advocating for affirmance of the reimbursement order.

Unconstitutional feeLegal duressInvoluntary paymentBuilding permitMunicipal feesReimbursementTown of WallkillVideo Aid Corp.Business expansionAppellate Division
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2004

Ulloa v. Universal Music and Video Distribution Corp.

Plaintiff Demme Ulloa initiated legal action against Universal Music and Video Distribution Corp., Island Def Jam Music Group, Roc-A-Fella Records, LLC, and Shawn Carter, alleging copyright infringement, false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, unjust enrichment, joint authorship, and an accounting of sales. Ulloa claimed to have spontaneously created a vocal counter-melody for Shawn Carter's song "Izzo (H.O.V.A.)" which was later used without proper credit or compensation. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the claims of joint authorship and Lanham Act violations, dismissing them. However, it denied both parties' motions for summary judgment regarding copyright infringement, citing unresolved factual disputes concerning originality, work-for-hire status, and implied license. Additionally, the defendants' motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim and to bifurcate the trial were denied.

Copyright InfringementLanham ActUnjust EnrichmentJoint AuthorshipSummary JudgmentWork for HireImplied LicenseMusical CompositionSound RecordingOriginality
References
31
Case No. ADJ1850137
Regular
Aug 14, 2012

CARMEN GARCIA vs. MISSION HOSPITAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, SEDGWICK CMS

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the judge's decision that found no permanent disability. The applicant argued the judge improperly relied on Dr. Cook's medical reports, which she claimed lacked substantial evidence and admissibility. However, the Board adopted the judge's report, emphasizing the weight given to credibility findings and noting that Dr. Cook's reports were supported by other physicians' findings and subrosa video evidence. This video demonstrably challenged the applicant's claims of limitations, contradicting her testimony about needing wrist supports for routine activities.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMission Hospital Regional Medical CenterSedgwick CMSReconsiderationLabor Code section 5313Smales v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.CredibilitySupplemental PetitionSummary of Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 1987

Promovision Video Display Corp. v. Intech Leasing Corp.

This case concerns an appeal where Promovision Video Display Corporation sued Intech Leasing Corporation for breach of contract and fraud. The dispute arose from a series of integrated agreements, including a sales agreement with an arbitration clause between Promovision and Fujitsu Systems of America, Inc., and a financing agreement between Promovision and Intech. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially denied Intech's motion to compel arbitration and granted Promovision's cross-motion to stay arbitration. The appellate court reversed this order, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act applied and that the arbitration clause, incorporated by reference into the financing agreement, governed the claims between Promovision and Intech. Consequently, the parties were directed to proceed to arbitration, and the action was stayed.

ArbitrationBreach of ContractFederal Arbitration ActIntegrated ContractsAssignmentFinancing AgreementSales AgreementMotion to Compel ArbitrationStay of ActionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. ADJ7253570
Regular
May 20, 2015

MICHELLE FELDHAKE vs. HOLLYWOOD VIDEO, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant, Michelle Feldhake, and defendants Hollywood Video and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The defendants petitioned for removal of an order that closed discovery and set the case for trial, arguing it would cause irreparable harm by preventing them from obtaining vocational evidence. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the order, and returned the case to the trial level due to ambiguity regarding the timing of the applicant's vocational expert's report. This action allows defendants to potentially obtain and present their own vocational evidence.

Petition for RemovalDiminished Future Earning CapacityVocational ExpertClosing DiscoveryDue ProcessIrreparable HarmVocational EvidenceMandatory Settlement ConferenceFindings Award and OrderHome Healthcare
References
2
Case No. ADJ15999814, ADJ16759614
Regular
Jun 24, 2025

JOSE GAMBOA vs. SAPUTO CHEESE USA, INC.; SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered and denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendants, Saputo Cheese USA, Inc. and Sedgwick. The petition challenged Dr. Mandell's alternative impairment rating, the exclusion of subrosa video evidence, and apportionment opinions. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding that the petition was timely acted upon and that defendant's arguments lacked foundation or substantial medical evidence. The WCJ's decision was ultimately supported by substantial medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemSubrosa videoImpeachmentMedical evidenceFunctional capacity evaluationAlmaraz/Guzman analysisSubstantial medical evidence
References
9
Case No. ADJ15306840
Regular
May 27, 2025

RUBEN PEDROZA vs. OC JONES & SONS, INC.; NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO.

Applicant Ruben Pedroza sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings and Order (F&O) that denied his claim for industrial injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the F&O, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Board found the WCJ erred by relying on a QME's summary of unadmitted subrosa video for credibility findings and identified an unaddressed conflict of interest regarding the QME. The Board determined that applicant's corrected statements about his work history did not significantly undermine his credibility.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorSubrosa VideoIndustrial InjuryCausationAOE/COELabor CodeMedical EvidenceConflict of Interest
References
0
Case No. ADJ9473601
Regular
Mar 10, 2016

BRIAN JONES vs. ARS INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because the order under review was a discovery ruling, not a final order. Furthermore, the Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, finding it lacked specific legal support and failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board noted that the admissibility of the subrosa video can be addressed at later evidentiary hearings. Additionally, the applicant's non-attorney representative's status and eligibility for fees remain unclear under current regulations.

Subrosa videoPetition for reconsiderationPetition for removalDiscovery orderFinal orderDue processRight to privacyWCJPQMELabor Code section 5900
References
9
Case No. ADJ10161297
Regular
Nov 17, 2017

LUIS CHAVEZ vs. SYSCO, AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's (WCJ) findings. The WCJ found the applicant not to be a credible witness, largely due to discrepancies between his reported limitations and observed activities in subrosa video evidence. Consequently, the WCJ determined that the applicant failed to prove his injury arose out of and occurred in the course of his employment (AOE/COE). The WCAB gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination, finding no substantial evidence to warrant overturning it.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationCredibility DeterminationSubrosa VideoAOE/COERange of MotionAMA GuidelinesSubstantial Medical EvidenceCausationModified Work
References
9
Case No. ADJ769451 (MON 0236205)
Regular
Apr 01, 2010

CLEMI BOUBLI vs. CAST & CREW PAYROLL, CNA

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal after the WCJ struck an Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) report and closed discovery. The AME reviewed surveillance videos suggesting the applicant's reported disability was feigned or exaggerated, recommending further evaluation. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding disputes regarding video admissibility require resolution at the trial level. The matter is returned for the WCJ to determine video admissibility and decide on further medical evaluations.

RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorSurveillance VideoExaggerated DisabilityNeuropsychological EvaluationUnfair DecisionAdmissible EvidenceEvidentiary RulingsReconsiderationTrial Level Proceedings
References
1
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.

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