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
May 17, 2011

Avrio Group Surveillance Solutions, Inc. v. Essex Insurance

Plaintiff Avrio Group Surveillance Solutions commenced a declaratory judgment action against Defendant Essex Insurance Company, seeking an order to defend and indemnify Avrio in a personal injury action. Essex filed a motion to dismiss, which was converted to a motion for summary judgment. The court addressed two main exclusions: the Completed Operations Exclusion and the Contractual Liability Exclusion. The court found a potentiality of coverage under the Completed Operations Exclusion due to ambiguities in the term "intended use" and unresolved factual issues regarding the completion of work, denying summary judgment on this ground. However, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Essex regarding the Contractual Liability Exclusion, as the subcontract did not qualify as an "insured contract" under the policy's specific definition in effect at the time of the incident, and Avrio was presumed to have agreed to these terms. The case will proceed to an evidentiary hearing on the Completed Operations Exclusion.

Insurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentContractual Liability ExclusionCompleted Operations ExclusionInsurance Policy InterpretationChoice of LawMaryland Contract LawFederal Civil ProcedureDuty to Defend
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lindsey v. County of Erie

The plaintiff, Ms. Lindsey, an employee of Ciminelli Construction Company, was injured at a worksite on March 21, 2000, and subsequently sought both Labor Law benefits and workers' compensation. After workers' compensation benefits were suspended due to alleged misrepresentation, Ms. Lindsey filed a motion seeking to compel Travelers Insurance Company, the compensation carrier, to produce surveillance videotapes prior to further Workers' Compensation Board proceedings. Travelers Insurance Company argued that such discovery would violate administrative rules; however, the court found that CPLR 3101 (i) was controlling in the civil action. The court further determined that Travelers, despite not being a direct party to the Labor Law action, created the surveillance tapes for its overall defense of claims against its insured, making them discoverable. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion, ordering Travelers Insurance Company to immediately deliver all surveillance tapes to the plaintiff's counsel.

Discovery MotionSurveillance VideotapesWorkers' CompensationLabor LawCPLR 3101(i)Insurance Carrier LiabilityAdministrative RulesCivil ProcedureEmployer LiabilityNonparty Discovery
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Morelli v. Tops Markets

Claimant, having sustained work-related injuries in 2007 and receiving benefits, was questioned by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) regarding work activities at a 2011 hearing. Immediately after, the employer and its carrier sought to introduce surveillance video and investigator testimony, alleging a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The WCLJ denied this request and precluded the evidence, ruling that the carrier failed to disclose the surveillance prior to the claimant's testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, reiterating the established requirement for timely disclosure of surveillance materials to prevent 'gamesmanship.' The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious action, as the carrier had an opportunity to disclose the evidence before prompting the WCLJ's questioning and before the claimant testified.

Workers' Compensation LawSurveillance EvidenceDisclosure ObligationPreclusion of EvidenceAppellate ReviewEvidence AdmissibilityClaimant TestimonyEmployer ResponsibilitiesCarrier ResponsibilitiesBoard Decision
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 1992

Jones v. Utilities Painting Corp.

This case involves an appeal by the third-party defendant, Consolidated Edison Co., from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The original order had granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to include a cause of action for future medical surveillance costs and emotional distress against Consolidated Edison Co. The appellate court reversed the order, denying the plaintiffs' motion. The court found that the cause of action was barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, citing several prior cases as precedent.

Medical Surveillance CostsEmotional DistressWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Amendment of ComplaintAppealReversal of OrderMotion DeniedThird-Party DefendantSupreme CourtNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General of the United States

Plaintiffs, the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) and Socialist Workers Party (SWP), sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from conducting surveillance at the YSA's national convention. The organizations argued that the FBI's intended surveillance, which included recording identities and sharing information for government employment screening, created a substantial chilling effect on their First Amendment rights of free speech and association. The court, presided over by Judge Griesa, found that the proposed surveillance would significantly impair these rights. Despite the government's contention, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' revolutionary rhetoric was theoretical and their record demonstrated non-violence, thus no compelling government interest justified the surveillance. Consequently, the motion for a preliminary injunction was granted.

First Amendment RightsFreedom of AssociationFreedom of SpeechFBI SurveillancePreliminary InjunctionPolitical OrganizationsSocialist Workers PartyYoung Socialist AllianceGovernment OverreachChilling Effect
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amnesty International USA v. McConnell

This case involves a facial challenge to the constitutionality of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), as amended by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA). The plaintiffs, a group of attorneys and organizations whose work necessitates international communications, argue that the FAA unconstitutionally authorizes surveillance targeting non-United States persons outside the U.S. to acquire foreign intelligence information. They asserted an actual and well-founded fear of surveillance, leading them to incur significant costs to protect their communications. The defendants, including the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the statute. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish Article III standing, concluding that their fear of surveillance was abstract and hypothetical, and their alleged costs, flowing from a subjective chill, did not constitute a concrete and particularized injury in fact. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the government's motion, dismissing the complaint.

Facial ChallengeFISAFAAForeign Intelligence Surveillance ActFourth AmendmentFirst AmendmentArticle IIIStandingElectronic SurveillanceNational Security
References
43
Case No. ADJ3787731 (OAK 0332481)
Regular
Oct 17, 2008

LINDA ALCUTT vs. VOLT SERVICES GROUP, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Board granted reconsideration to allow the WCJ to consider surveillance videos and the medical reports of Dr. Morris, which were initially excluded. The WCJ erred by not admitting Dr. Morris' reports, who opined the applicant's condition was permanent and stationary, and by failing to discuss the surveillance evidence. The case is remanded for further proceedings to admit Dr. Morris' reports and consider all evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityPermanent and StationaryQualified Medical EvaluatorTreating PhysicianSub Rosa InvestigationMedical ReportsLabor Code § 4062Admissibility of Evidence
References
0
Case No. ADJ387595 (VNO 0552648)
Regular
Jul 12, 2016

JOEL CARDENAS vs. ML ELECTRIC WORKS, INC, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, modifying a prior order by an administrative law judge. The Board removed the issues of penalty, costs, and sanctions related to the disclosure of sub rosa video and surveillance logs from trial consideration. However, the Board affirmed the remainder of the judge's order, which had compelled the defendant to serve the sub rosa materials and produce the claims adjuster and documents at trial. This decision aimed to prevent further discovery beyond the mandatory settlement conference cutoff while still requiring disclosure of the surveillance evidence.

Sub rosa videoPetition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery cut-offDue processIrreparable harmClaims adjusterLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)PenaltySanctions
References
0
Case No. ADJ7028178
Regular
Mar 18, 2013

LEOBARDO CHAVEZ vs. VAN ACKER CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATES, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) order quashing subpoenas duces tecum. The Board found the subpoenas overly broad, duplicative, and burdensome, requesting extensive records related to surveillance beyond what had already been provided. While acknowledging the applicant was not afforded sufficient opportunity to respond to the initial motion to quash, the Board determined no substantial prejudice occurred as the applicant could issue a more narrowly drawn subpoena. The denial ensures the applicant must refashion a reasonable request for surveillance records.

Petition for RemovalQuashed Subpoenas Duces TecumOverbroadDuplicativeBurdensomeSurveillance RecordsPrivileged DocumentsInvestigator's Field NotesOpportunity to be HeardSubstantial Prejudice
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2004

Claim of Petit v. Syracuse Housing Authority

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that found the claimant did not violate Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a by knowingly misrepresenting a material fact. The employer and State Insurance Fund appealed this finding. The court upheld the Board’s determination, stating that the claimant’s sworn testimony was consistent with video surveillance and investigator testimony, thus constituting substantial evidence. The claimant provided explanations for activities shown in surveillance that were seemingly inconsistent with his reported disability, but the court found he did not testify falsely. Therefore, the Board’s decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationMisrepresentationDisability BenefitsSurveillance EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceMedical Examiner OpinionClaimant CredibilityAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmation
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 166 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