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
Sep 14, 1992

Thousand v. Human Resources Administration

The case involves an appeal from an amended decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding a death benefits claim. The claimant’s decedent, Marion Holmes-Thousand, suffered a fatal heart attack at work in 1984, and a claim was filed two years later, exceeding the 30-day notice requirement. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board excused the late notice, finding the employer, Neighborhood Action Board #2, and its insurer, Zurich Insurance Company, were not prejudiced. Zurich appealed this decision, arguing it was prejudiced by the delay and inability to investigate or file a claim under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (e). The court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported excusing the late notice due to the employer’s actual knowledge of the death and Zurich’s failure to demonstrate actual prejudice despite opportunities for investigation.

Late NoticeExcused DelayEmployer PrejudiceFatal Heart AttackWork-Related InjuryDeath Benefits ClaimInsurance Carrier LiabilityBoard Decision AffirmationAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. ADJ10201509
Regular
Aug 28, 2019

ANGELA GARCIA vs. MANI BROTHERS NINE THOUSAND DE, LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Reconsideration filed by lien claimant Qualified Billing and Collections, LLC, in the case of Angela Garcia v. Mani Brothers Nine Thousand DE, LLC. The Board adopted the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge, finding no evidence of fraud by the defendant concerning a deposition. Additionally, the Board admonished the lien claimant's representative for attaching inadmissible exhibits to their petition, warning of future sanctions for non-compliance with Board rules. Consequently, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportlien claimantfrauddepositionIlona KulikovaQualified Billing and CollectionsLLCAppeals Board Rule 10842(c)
References
0
Case No. ADJ6844781
Regular
Jun 04, 2013

JOSE PORTILLO vs. SOUTWEST TRAILS, INC., CASTLEPOINTE, Administered By TOWER GROUP COMPANIES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision awards an additional $3,500.00 in attorney's fees to Applicant's counsel. The award stems from services rendered in successfully defending against Defendant Southwest Trails, Inc.'s Petition for Writ of Review. The Court of Appeal had previously remanded the case specifically for this supplemental fee determination. The Board found the requested amount reasonable based on attorney effort, complexity, and the appellate victory.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDADDITIONAL ATTORNEY'S FEELABOR CODE § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewCourt of Appealsupplemental awardappellate attorney's feeEmployers Mutual Liability Insurance Company v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.respondentapplicant
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. 13.10 Acres of Land in County of Putnam

This case involves a condemnation action brought by the United States against Christina Mattin to acquire 13.1 acres of her land in Putnam County for a buffer zone around the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. Mattin moved for summary judgment, arguing a "substantial relocation" of the trail requiring an act of Congress, and that the acquisition was not "reasonably necessary" and made arbitrarily. The Court denied Mattin's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion, ruling that the trail relocation was not substantial based on the Secretary's reasonable interpretation of the National Trails System Act, and that the acquisition was necessary for trail protection and not arbitrary or capricious, and that reasonable efforts for acquisition were made.

CondemnationSummary JudgmentNational Trails System ActAppalachian TrailLand AcquisitionStatutory InterpretationBuffer ZoneAdministrative DeferenceProperty RightsFederal Land
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04615
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2018

Matter of Johnson v. Town of Caroga

Petitioners Charles F. Johnson and Helen Johnson challenged a determination by the Town of Caroga to condemn a portion of their real property. The Town sought to acquire a strip of land to expand access to a recreational trail. Petitioners argued that the Town lacked statutory authority, the acquisition lacked a public purpose, and the Town Board failed to follow proper environmental review procedures under ECL article 8. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Town's determination, finding that the Town possessed the statutory authority for the acquisition, that preserving public access to recreational trails constituted a valid public purpose, and that the Town Board's environmental review was adequate.

Eminent DomainPublic UseRecreational TrailsEnvironmental ReviewSEQRACondemnationLand AcquisitionTown Board AuthorityAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04164 [219 AD3d 994]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2023

Bishop v. State of New York

Claimant Robert Bishop, an experienced snowboarder, appealed the dismissal of his negligence claim against the State of New York and the Olympic Regional Development Authority. Bishop was injured at Belleayre Mountain Ski Center after hitting a metal bolt protruding from a pole in an area marked as off-trail. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, citing the primary assumption of risk doctrine. The court concluded that Bishop, as a skilled snowboarder, assumed the inherent and foreseeable risks of the activity, including visible artificial objects like the pole and its bolt located outside the designated ski trail. Defendants were found to have fulfilled their duty of care by properly marking hazards and inspecting the slopes.

SnowboardingSkiing AccidentNegligenceAssumption of RiskRecreational SportsDuty of CareGeneral Obligations LawAppellate ReviewThird DepartmentHazard Warning
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eisenberg v. Angelo, Gordon & Co.

Jeffrey Eisenberg petitioned the court to vacate a portion of an arbitration award, dated July 20, 1999, which he claimed denied him 'trailing commissions' after his employment termination with Angelo, Gordon & Co., L.P. The respondent, Angelo Gordon, cross-moved to confirm the award in its entirety. The arbitration, conducted by NASD Regulation, Inc., resulted in an award of $285,750 to Eisenberg and denied all other claims. The court, citing limited judicial review of arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act and the high burden for vacating on 'manifest disregard of the law' grounds, found no clear legal error. The judge determined that even if the award denied trailing commissions, it could be consistent with a finding by arbitrators that no oral agreement for such commissions existed, an issue of credibility reserved for the arbitral panel. Consequently, Eisenberg’s motion to vacate was denied, and Angelo Gordon’s cross-motion to confirm the award was granted, leading to the entry of a judgment confirming the arbitration award.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActVacate AwardConfirm AwardTrailing CommissionsManifest Disregard of LawJudicial ReviewSecurities IndustryBroker DealerEmployment Dispute
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 1996

In re the Claim of Thousand

The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claimant's application for death benefits, ruling that the decedent's death from metastatic lung cancer was not causally related to a work-related right shoulder injury sustained on January 10, 1986. While the claimant's medical expert opined that the shoulder injury hastened the death, experts for the self-insured employer and an impartial expert concluded there was no causal relationship. Given the conflicting medical testimony and the Board's broad discretion, the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationCausationMedical TestimonyShoulder InjuryLung CancerDeath BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceConflicting EvidenceMedical Opinion
References
1
Case No. ADJ2905370 (LAO 0869494)
Regular
Dec 31, 2008

JENNIFER ANN MCCLASKEY vs. POLLY'S BAKERY CAFÉ; EMPLOYERS DIRECT THOUSAND OAKS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the WCJ's award of medical treatment expenses for the applicant's neck. The Board found that the lien claimants failed to prove an industrial injury to the applicant's neck, a condition not included in the original compromise and release. Consequently, the Board reversed the WCJ's decision, disallowing the liens for treatment related to the neck.

WCABFindings and AwardReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5313Order Approving Compromise and ReleaseBilateral Carpal TunnelLien ClaimantsIndustrial InjuryNeck SymptomsAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)
References
4
Case No. ADJ2215482
Regular
Oct 14, 2008

NANCY MCLEARY vs. SATURN OF THOUSAND OAKS, DCH MANAGEMENT, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns an applicant seeking workers' compensation for an industrial injury to her back and neck, which exacerbated her need for refills of an intrathecal opiate pump. The defendant argued the pump refills were not industrial in origin, but the Board affirmed the original award, applying the principle that if an industrial injury contributes to the need for medical treatment, the employer is responsible for the entire cost. The Board granted reconsideration solely to defer the issue of the applicant's attorney's fees pending a Supreme Court decision on a related matter.

intrathecal pumpopiate solution refillsindustrial injurypreexisting conditionmedical treatment apportionmentcure or relieveagreed medical evaluatorpain management specialistprior motor vehicle accidentapplicant testimony
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 30 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