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. ADJ9456228 (MF), ADJ9341963
Regular
Oct 09, 2018

MARIA COLCHADO vs. TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING HOLDING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, SELECT STAFFING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, TRI-STATE STAFFING, CIGA administered by SEDGWICK for LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to determine Toll Global Forwarding's employer status. While the ALJ found Toll Global was not a special employer, the Board reversed this, finding Toll Global was indeed the special employer. This determination was based on Toll Global's direct supervision and instruction of the applicant. The staffing agencies, Select Staffing and Tri-State Staffing, were designated as the general employers.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGASpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerToll Global ForwardingSelect StaffingTri-State StaffingACE American InsuranceJoint Findings and OrderPetition for Reconsideration
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angus Partners LLC v. Walder

Plaintiffs Angus Partners LLC d/b/a Angus Energy and White Crane Martial Arts, Inc. brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA), and their officials, alleging that bridge and tunnel tolls violated the constitutionally-protected right to travel and the dormant Commerce Clause, as well as New York common law claims for unjust enrichment and money had and received. Defendants moved for summary judgment, and Plaintiffs cross-moved. The court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiffs' cross-motion. The court found no discrimination against interstate commerce, noting that toll discounts were available to all E-ZPass users regardless of residency. It also concluded that the tolls were based on a fair approximation of use and were not excessive, as the MTA and TBTA operate an integrated transportation system providing substantial benefits to toll-payers, such as reduced traffic congestion and economic advantages. Consequently, the state law claims, being premised on unconstitutional or unlawful tolls, were also dismissed.

Right to TravelDormant Commerce ClauseTollsTransportation AuthoritySummary JudgmentNew York LawUnjust EnrichmentMoney Had and ReceivedIntegrated Transportation SystemPublic Benefit Corporation
References
32
Case No. 93 CV 4888 (ADS)
Regular Panel Decision

Wenzel v. Nassau County Police Department

The plaintiff, Mary Ann Wenzel, a former Nassau County Police Officer, sued the Nassau County Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging civil rights violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants sought dismissal, claiming the statute of limitations had expired. Wenzel argued for tolling the statute due to insanity under CPLR § 208. Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky recommended against tolling, finding Wenzel capable of protecting her legal rights. District Judge Spatt adopted this recommendation, ruling that Wenzel did not meet the "insanity" criteria for tolling the statute of limitations. Consequently, the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Civil RightsStatute of LimitationsTolling ProvisionInsanity Defense42 U.S.C. Section 1983CPLR Section 208Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissDepression
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Cerami v. City of Rochester Sch. Dist.

Claimant Cerami filed a workers’ compensation claim in September 1980 for a mental breakdown in 1967, which was initially deemed time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28. Cerami sought to invoke the mental incompetence toll of section 115. The Workers’ Compensation Board found Cerami competent in 1967 and denied the toll, but the Appellate Division reversed, adopting a broader definition of mental incompetence. This court rejected the Appellate Division's definition, aligning with the CPLR 208 insanity toll requiring an overall inability to function in society to protect legal rights. The court found that the Board applied the correct legal standard and its determination was supported by substantial evidence, thus reversing the Appellate Division's order and reinstating the Board’s original decision.

workers' compensationmental incompetencestatute of limitationstolling provisionparanoid schizophreniaAppellate Division reversalWorkers' Compensation Board decisionsubstantial evidencelegal rightsCPLR 208
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2013

Janes v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority

Plaintiffs Riva Janes, Bruce Schwartz, Bette Goldstein, and Hillel Abraham filed a class action against the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA), Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), and their chairmen. They alleged that differential toll policies on New York City bridges, which provide discounts only to residents of specific areas, violate the Commerce Clause, Privileges and Immunities Clause, and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as New York State law. The court, relying on prior Selevan decisions, determined that the toll policies were merely minor restrictions on travel and did not warrant strict scrutiny. Applying the three-factor Northwest Airlines test, the court concluded that the tolls were a fair approximation of use, not excessive relative to the benefits conferred on the integrated transit system, and did not discriminate against interstate commerce. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all federal and state law claims.

Toll PoliciesDifferential TollsDormant Commerce ClauseRight to TravelEqual ProtectionSummary JudgmentConstitutional LawNew York City TransitVerrazano-Narrows BridgeCross Bay Veterans Memorial Bridge
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kotlyarsky v. New York Post

Plaintiffs Boris and Alla Kotlyarsky and Reliable Rehabilitation Center, Inc. sued defendants New York Post, NYP Holdings, Inc., Susan Edelman, and Devlin Barrett for libel. The action stemmed from a December 11, 2000 article in the New York Post that alleged Boris Kotlyarsky was under federal indictment and described Reliable Rehabilitation Center as a 'medical mill.' Plaintiffs claimed they were promised a retraction, which was later withdrawn, leading them to delay filing their lawsuit until August 12, 2002. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the one-year statute of limitations for libel had expired on December 12, 2001. Plaintiffs invoked equitable estoppel, equitable tolling, and promissory estoppel to argue the statute was tolled. The court found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the retraction and thus, the doctrines of estoppel or tolling were not applicable. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

defamationlibelstatute of limitationsequitable estoppelequitable tollingpromissory estoppelsummary judgmentdue diligenceretractionNew York Law
References
15
Case No. AHM 0080703
Regular
Jul 20, 2007

LOC TRAN vs. VIET NGUYEN TRUCKING CO., AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the prior order that disallowed a lien claim. The Board found that the statute of limitations for the lien claim might be tolled because the defendant failed to serve the lien claimant with the Compromise and Release agreement. The case is returned to the trial level to determine if the lien claimant provided proper written notice of its claim to the defendant prior to the settlement, which would necessitate compliance with notice rules and potentially toll the statute of limitations.

Labor Code § 4903.5Labor Code § 4904(a)WCAB Rule 10886WCAB Rule 10888WCAB Rule 10890statute of limitationstollingCompromise and Releaselien claimantservice of documents
References
3
Case No. ADJ6750650, ADJ7660512
Regular
Oct 02, 2017

FRANCISCA TEJEDA vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DPSS, SEDGWICK COLA

This case before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the applicant, Francisca Tejeda, against the County of Los Angeles DPSS. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the reasoning of the administrative law judge. Crucially, the Board found that its statutory 60-day deadline to act on the petition was tolled due to administrative error. This tolling period, analogous to the situation in *Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, allowed the Board to issue a timely denial of the petition despite exceeding the initial timeframe.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedOperation of LawDue ProcessTolledLabor Code Section 5909WCJ ReportMisplaced FileStatutory Time Limits
References
0
Case No. ADJ8853372
Regular
Dec 15, 2014

FRANK SOFER vs. VERA CAMPBELL KDWZ, TOWER GROUP COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was an employee of Vera Campbell and KDWZ. The Board agreed with the Administrative Law Judge's report, which found the applicant's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations due to equitable tolling. This equitable tolling was based on the applicant's timely civil lawsuit against the employer for failing to provide workers' compensation insurance, which alerted the defendant to the potential claim. The Board also noted the defendant presented no evidence to rebut the applicant's medical evidence of injury.

ADJ8853372Petition for ReconsiderationEmployee statusLabor Code 2750.5Statute of limitationsEquitable tollingMedical evidenceEstoppelLachesTraumatic brain injury
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 269 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