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. GRO 0021432
Regular
Apr 28, 2008

Theodore Maiso vs. State of California, Department of Mental Health, State Compensation Insurance Fund, State Contract Services

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by applicant Theodore Maiso against the State of California, Department of Mental Health. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report and reasoning. The Board also corrected a technicality by ordering the substitution of "State of California, Division of Workers' Compensation, Workers' Compensation Appeals Board" in place of "State of California, Division of Workers' Compensation" in the WCJ's decision headings to accurately reflect the judicial authority.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDTheodore MaisoState of California Department of Mental HealthLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundAdjusting AgencyOrder Denying ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeJudicial AuthorityOriginal Jurisdiction
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Panek

Theodore (Ted) Panek's will, which bequeathed a significant portion of his estate to the proponent, was challenged by eight objectants on grounds of undue influence. A jury in Surrogate’s Court found that while Ted had testamentary capacity, he was subjected to undue influence by the proponent, leading to the denial of probate. On appeal, the court affirmed the Surrogate’s decree. The appellate court found ample circumstantial evidence to support the jury's finding, noting the proponent's financial motive, her control over Ted's environment and finances, his fragile health, and her active efforts to isolate him and pressure him into making the will against his prior resistance.

Will ContestUndue InfluenceTestamentary CapacityProbate LawEstate AdministrationAppellate ReviewSurrogate's CourtCircumstantial EvidenceFiduciary RelationshipElder Abuse
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 1999

Gregston v. Amatulli

The petitioner, Frances Gregston, appealed an order from the Family Court, Nassau County, which granted the Law Guardian's motion to prohibit her from having contact with her half-siblings, Theodore and Crystal, and dismissed her petition for visitation. The appellate court reversed the Family Court's order, citing an error in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing despite a factual dispute regarding the best interests of the half-siblings. The case was remitted to the Family Court for a hearing and determination of the petition, with the interim condition that the petitioner continue to have no contact. The appellate court also suggested the Family Court determine if the single representation by the Law Guardian for both children created a conflict.

Sibling visitationFamily LawLaw GuardianBest interests of the childEvidentiary hearingReversalRemittalNassau County Family CourtAppellate DivisionConflict of interest
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02965 [171 AD3d 567]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2019

Matter of Community United to Protect Theodore Roosevelt Park v. City of New York

Petitioners challenged the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation's approval of an addition to the American Museum of Natural History (Gilder Center), arguing that a Uniform Land-Use Review Procedure (ULURP) was not conducted and that environmental impacts (hazardous materials, construction noise) were not properly assessed under SEQRA and CEQR. The Supreme Court denied their petition, and the Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division found that ULURP was not required because the underlying property disposition and site selection occurred over a century ago. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Parks Department had taken a "hard look" at the environmental concerns, including addressing hazardous vapors and proposing mitigation measures for noise, thus satisfying its obligations under environmental review statutes.

Environmental ReviewULURPSEQRACEQRPark LandMuseum ExpansionPublic Land UseArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative LawAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. ADJ9468922
Regular
Aug 11, 2025

THEODORE DAVIS vs. CITY OF MODESTO, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS CONCORD

The applicant, Theodore Davis, a firefighter for 36 years, developed prostate cancer which was denied by the City of Modesto. The case revolves around the application of Labor Code section 3212.1, which establishes a rebuttable presumption of compensability for cancer in firefighters. The Workers' Compensation Judge found that the medical opinion of PQME Dr. Allems, which stated that prostate cancer was not industrially caused in firefighters, was based on an incorrect legal theory and contained inconsistencies. Consequently, this opinion was deemed not substantial evidence to rebut the statutory presumption, leading to the denial of the Petition for Reconsideration by the Appeals Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Industrial CausationAOE/COELabor Code Section 3600Cancer PresumptionLabor Code Section 3212.1Firefighter
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox v. Tioga Construction Co.

Plaintiff Theodore Fox, Jr. was severely injured on October 10, 2002, when a pedestrian bridge under construction in Marcy, New York, collapsed, causing him to fall over 30 feet. As an employee of the New York State Department of Transportation, he was performing his employment duties when the accident occurred. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240, arguing that the defendant, Tioga Construction Company, Inc., failed to provide required safety devices like shoring at the elevated work site. The court rejected the defendant's contention that discovery was needed or that the permanent nature of the bridge precluded Labor Law § 240 applicability, emphasizing the nondelegable duty to provide protection against gravity-related hazards. Finding no factual dispute, the court granted the plaintiff's motion, holding the defendant liable under Labor Law § 240 for failing to provide proper protection.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240Scaffold LawAbsolute LiabilityElevated Work SiteBridge CollapseConstruction AccidentWorker InjurySafety DevicesShoring
References
23
Case No. TI11710087
Regular
Nov 20, 2018

Theodore Davis vs. CITY OF MODESTO, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES, GROUP, INC.

This case involves applicant Theodore Davis's prostate cancer claim against the City of Modesto. The core dispute centers on the admissibility and review of a medical report by Dr. Besses. The Appeals Board initially denied review of Dr. Besses' report but, following a court of appeal remittitur, is now granting removal. The matter is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to re-evaluate the admissibility of Dr. Besses' report under Labor Code section 4605 and related rules, and whether it can be provided to the QME. This decision clarifies that while QME evaluations are required for compensability disputes, privately obtained medical reports may still be admissible.

RemittiturPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 4060Labor Code Section 4605Admissibility of Medical ReportsEx Parte CommunicationCumulative TraumaSpecific Injury
References
9
Case No. ADJ9843524
Regular
Dec 13, 2017

THEODORE MEREDITH vs. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION, ESIS, administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Theodore Meredith's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely, as it was filed significantly past the jurisdictional 25-day deadline following service of the WCJ's order. Despite the dismissal, the Board noted the petition might indicate a desire to re-initiate the claim. They returned the matter to the trial level for the WCJ to determine if the petition effectively sought to re-initiate the claim, subject to statute of limitations. The WCJ will develop the record and applicant may file a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed.

Petition for Reconsiderationuntimelyjurisdictionaldismissedstatute of limitationsLabor CodeCal. Code Regs.Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJre-initiate claim
References
5
Case No. ADJ9467074; ADJ9468922
Regular
Jul 15, 2018

THEODORE DAVIS vs. CITY OF MODESTO, Permissibly Self-Insured, administered by YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case involves applicant Theodore Davis's claims of industrial injury to his prostate. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for removal and dismissed their petition for reconsideration. The WCAB rescinded the judge's finding that Dr. Besses' inadmissible report could be reviewed by the PQME, citing Labor Code section 4061(i) and Regulation 35(e). The Board affirmed that inadmissible medical-legal reports, obtained outside statutory procedures, cannot be reviewed by the PQME.

WCABRemovalReconsiderationPetitionAdmissibilityMedical-legal reportPQMELabor CodeBattenQualified Medical Evaluator
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04970
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2022

Parrino v. Rauert

Salvatore Parrino was injured while performing tile work at Theodore Rauert's single-family residence when unsecured sheetrock panels toppled and pinned him. He, along with his wife suing derivatively, commenced an action against Rauert, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The Supreme Court granted Rauert summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim but denied it for the Labor Law § 241(6) claim due to triable issues concerning the homeowner exemption. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the injuries were not caused by an elevation-related risk under § 240(1) and that Rauert failed to establish the homeowner exemption for § 241(6) given the uncertainty about the property's intended use at the time of injury. Additionally, the cross appeal by Spectrum Professional Inspection Services, Inc., and Robert Steiner was dismissed as abandoned.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Homeowner ExemptionSummary JudgmentFalling ObjectPersonal InjuryAppellate DivisionConstruction AccidentElevation DifferentialSheetrock
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 37 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