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. ADJ9140416
Regular
Oct 10, 2014

MARIA FITZPATRICK vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant school district's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the original award of temporary disability indemnity benefits to the applicant, Maria Fitzpatrick. This award was based on her lost earning capacity during summer months, as she was prevented from performing modified work due to her industrial injury. The majority found the applicant credible regarding her inability to secure summer employment due to her injury and the defendant's actions. One commissioner dissented, arguing the applicant failed to prove she applied for or would have worked during the summer months in question.

Temporary Disability IndemnityFindings of Fact and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilityModified WorkMedical LeaveEarning CapacitySummer WorkIndustrial InjuryBurden of Proof
References
1
Case No. CA 12-00739
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2012

KIN, SUMMER v. STATE OF NEW YORK

Summer Kin, a claimant, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder during a bridge reconstruction project. She filed an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against the State of New York, her employer's client and the property owner. The Court of Claims initially denied Kin's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and partially granted the State's cross-motion, dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting Kin's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), determining that the ladder provided improper protection and the State failed to demonstrate Kin's conduct as the sole proximate cause. The court also granted the State's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding the cited Industrial Code provisions (12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (b) (4) (iv) and 23-1.21 (a)) inapplicable or insufficiently specific. Kin had abandoned contentions regarding common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims on appeal.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallLabor LawNew YorkAppellate DivisionSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityWorker SafetyStatutory Violation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 1996

In re the Claim of Barney S.

The claimant was found to be ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits received during a three-month summer break from their employment as a university food service worker. This ineligibility stemmed from their union contract, which stipulated a payment of $90 per week after the exhaustion of their vacation pay during this period. According to Labor Law § 590 (11), a nonprofessional employee of an educational institution is not eligible for benefits during a break if they receive reasonable assurance of reemployment for the subsequent academic term. The ruling determined that the claimant had been given reasonable assurance of reemployment, making the benefits received during the summer break recoverable. Consequently, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was affirmed.

Unemployment insuranceeducational institutionsummer breakreemployment assurancebenefits ineligibilityunion contractLabor Lawappealsubstantial evidencerecoverable benefits
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Olmedo v. Mayor's Summer Youth Program

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the death of a 16-year-old employee. The decedent drowned while attempting a rescue during an employer-organized picnic for the Mayor’s Summer Youth Program in the City of Buffalo. The Board ruled that the death arose out of and in the course of his employment and that his mother was partially dependent on him, entitling her to death benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence. The court noted that the employer exercised control over the event by authorizing attendance during business hours and gained a business advantage through improved employee morale. Additionally, the court upheld the finding of the mother's partial dependency, citing her ill health, inability to work, and the decedent's regular financial contributions which were essential to her family's standard of living.

Workers' CompensationDrowning AccidentEmployment-Related DeathRecreational ActivitiesEmployee PicnicPartial Dependency ClaimDeath BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceEmployer Control
References
9
Case No. ADJ4365742 (LBO 0352703) ADJ4152332 (LBO 0357943) ADJ940369 (LAO 0870317)
Regular
Mar 04, 2011

MICHAEL SUMMERS vs. NATIONWIDE PAPERS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

This case concerns applicant Michael Summers' petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award for a right knee injury sustained in 1998. The administrative law judge (WCJ) found the applicant's permanent disability arose solely from the 1998 injury and was correctly rated under the 1997 schedule. Applicant argued for a single award for multiple injuries, including a later one, and use of the AMA Guides, but the WCJ relied on the treating physician's opinion that only the 1998 injury caused disability. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the 1997 schedule properly applied based on pre-2005 medical reports.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardNationwide PapersSedgwick Claims ManagementMichael SummersTruck DriverIndustrial InjuryRight KneePermanent DisabilityApportionmentDr. Rothi
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Wolfson

The claimant, a school teacher, appealed a December 3, 1975 decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed a referee's determination that he was ineligible for Special Unemployment Assistance benefits due to not being totally unemployed. Despite working only 10 months, the claimant was paid a 12-month salary, with payments for July and August 1975 deferred until December. He contended that these months did not constitute a paid vacation period under Labor Law § 591(3) because payment was delayed beyond 30 days. However, the court disagreed, citing precedent that teachers paid annually for 12 months are not considered totally unemployed during their non-working months, irrespective of the payment schedule. The court further held that Labor Law § 591 does not apply to situations where a claimant's salary is based on a 12-month period and paid for each of those months. Finding substantial evidence to support the board's determination, the court affirmed the decision.

Unemployment InsuranceSpecial Unemployment Assistance ProgramTotal UnemploymentSchool TeacherPaid VacationLabor Law § 59112-month SalaryBenefit EligibilityAppeal Board DecisionAffirmed Decision
References
7
Case No. ADJ9567245
Regular
Apr 01, 2016

JASON SUMMERS vs. SANTA CLARA COUNTY VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration by Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority regarding a psychological injury claim sustained by applicant Jason Summers. The petitioner argued the applicant was the initial physical aggressor, barring his claim under Labor Code section 3600(a)(7). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's finding that the petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof. The WCJ's credibility determination, favoring a neutral witness over conflicting applicant and co-worker testimony, was central to this decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings and AwardPsyche injuryTemporary disabilityInitial physical aggressorLabor Code section 3600(a)(7)Burden of proofWCJ credibility determinationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fenderson v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants

Plaintiffs, Gregory Fenderson, James Summers, and Carmelo Torre, are flight attendants for Trans World Airlines (TWA) and moved for partial summary judgment against TWA and the Independent Federation of Flight Attendants (IFFA). They alleged violations of section 2, Eleventh (a) of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) concerning IFFA's union security clause. The plaintiffs challenged two amendments to the IFFA's Constitution and Bylaws: a twelve-month "education and orientation period" where new members couldn't vote, and a $250 initiation/readmission fee. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs regarding the education and orientation period, finding it violated the RLA by not offering membership on the same terms and conditions to all. However, the court denied summary judgment concerning the $250 fee, concluding it was uniformly applied and encompassed by "initiation fees" as per the RLA.

Railway Labor ActUnion Security ClauseFlight AttendantsSummary JudgmentUnion Membership RightsInitiation FeesReinstatement FeesVoting RightsLabor OrganizationsCollective Bargaining
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Stein

The case concerns a petitioner seeking reimbursement from the City of New York for the tuition and maintenance of a handicapped child, Ronnie, at a residential facility and a summer program. The court previously established that financially able parents are responsible for maintenance costs. The primary novel issue addressed was whether the summer program constituted a necessary educational expense or an extra benefit. The court determined that Ronnie's summer attendance was an extension of his educational process, not recreational, and thus a necessary expense. Consequently, the petitioner was granted reimbursement for tuition for both the regular school year and the summer program, but denied reimbursement for maintenance at the residential facility.

Handicapped Education LawSpecial Needs ChildrenTuition CostsParental ContributionSummer Educational ProgramsResidential FacilityFamily Court JurisdictionEducational ReimbursementOrganic Brain SyndromeMental Retardation
References
8
Case No. ANA 0363299
Regular
Jan 03, 2008

JONATHON ROONEY vs. LOWE'S, KEMPER/RELIANCE By SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding a prior ruling that an employee can receive compensation for a psychiatric injury even if the underlying physical injury occurred within the first six months of employment. The Board's decision relies on precedent establishing that Labor Code Section 3208.3(d)'s six-month employment requirement is met if the total duration of employment exceeds six months, regardless of whether that period was fully completed before the date of injury. This interpretation aims to prevent fraudulent claims during an employee's initial probationary period, a purpose not undermined when employment continues beyond six months.

Labor Code Section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysix-month employment requirementcompensable consequencedate of injuryemployment durationpetition for reconsiderationworkers' compensationCaliforniaapplicant
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 733 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