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

In re S. Children

This child protective proceeding was initiated by The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children against a father accused of sexually abusing his young son, Scott, in the presence of his older son, Jonathan. When Jonathan, an alleged eyewitness, became reluctant to testify in his father's presence, the petitioner requested his testimony be taken in camera. The court denied this application, citing the respondent's due process right to confront witnesses and finding insufficient evidence of a pathological impact on the child. The court emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for in camera testimony in such cases and suggested legislative consideration for future procedures to balance child protection with parental rights.

Child Protective ProceedingIn Camera TestimonyDue Process RightsRight to ConfrontationChild WitnessSexual Abuse AllegationsFamily Court ActWitness ReluctanceBalancing of InterestsExclusion of Respondent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Palacio v. A & P Tea Co.

Decedent, a corporate productivity manager for A & P Tea Company, maintained a demanding work schedule involving extensive travel and long hours, leading to his death from acute cardiovascular arrest on September 19, 1978, after a 17-hour workday. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a referee’s decision deeming his death work-related. The self-insured employer challenged this, arguing the widow’s uncorroborated testimony was insufficient under Workers’ Compensation Law § 118. The court disagreed, clarifying that § 118 requires corroboration only for statements made by the deceased, not the widow’s entire testimony based on personal knowledge. It concluded that the Board reasonably credited her testimony and the expert cardiologist’s report, despite conflicting medical opinions, thus upholding the finding of a causal relationship between the strenuous work and the heart attack. The Board's determination was affirmed.

Work-related heart attackCorroboration of testimonyWorkers' Compensation Law § 118Substantial evidenceCausal relationshipMedical disputeAppellate reviewSelf-insured employerCardiovascular arrestDemanding work schedule
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. ADJ8075448
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

ALEX ROBLES vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a trial judge's award in favor of applicant Alex Robles against Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). SCGC sought reconsideration, asserting that crucial testimony was omitted from the trial record. The WCAB ordered transcription of all trial testimony to ensure a full and fair adjudication of SCGC's petition. This action was necessary to allow the Board further study of the factual and legal issues involved.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAOE/COEGoing and Coming RuleMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceTrial TestimonyWCAB Rule 10740Transcript TranscriptionElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Washington v. Montefiore Hospital

Claimant, a mechanical engineer, sustained a work-related injury and received initial workers' compensation benefits. The employer later contested further disability, leading to a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) order for medical expert depositions, including one from the employer's expert, Robert Orlandi. Claimant's counsel objected to Orlandi's telephone deposition but failed to formally challenge the notice or raise a specific objection to the oath administration during the deposition. Orlandi's testimony, taken via telephone with the court reporter in New York and Orlandi in Connecticut, concluded that the claimant was no longer disabled. Both the WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board credited Orlandi's testimony, finding the claimant waived objections to the deposition's procedural irregularities. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the claimant's failure to make a timely and specific objection to the oath's administration during the deposition constituted a waiver, thus allowing the Board to properly rely on Orlandi's evidence.

Workers' CompensationMedical TestimonyDeposition ProcedureWaiver of ObjectionCPLROath AdministrationDisability AssessmentAppellate ReviewExpert WitnessProcedural Irregularities
References
2
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. ADJ3014811 (SFO 0511804)
Regular
Jul 09, 2010

ROBERT SULLIVAN vs. TASTE CATERING, FIRST COMP OMAHA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award, rescinding the temporary disability rate calculated based on the applicant's estimated tip income. The Board found the applicant's uncorroborated testimony regarding tips lacked credibility, particularly due to contradictory tax return information. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, urging the parties to agree on earnings or present substantial evidence. This decision emphasizes that earnings calculations must be supported by substantial evidence, not just applicant testimony.

Average Weekly EarningsTips IncomeEDD Wage StatementIndustrial InjuryTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent and StationarySubstantial EvidenceCredible TestimonyTax ReturnUnderreported Tip Income
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1971

Kurtis v. Harold L.

This case concerns an appeal from a Family Court order of filiation in Westchester County, dated February 8, 1971. The appellate court reversed the order and directed a new trial. The reversal was based on the finding that the original filiation order lacked clear and convincing evidence, relying solely on the uncorroborated and questioned testimony of the petitioner. Crucially, the petitioner had reportedly identified another individual as the child's father, and the initial trial did not present medical testimony or hospital records regarding the child's birth or pregnancy term. The court concluded that the evidence presented did not meet the required standard for such a matter.

Filiation OrderPaternity CaseClear and Convincing EvidenceUncorroborated TestimonyVeracity of WitnessNew Trial OrderedAppellate ReviewFamily Law AppealSufficiency of Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Bennett

The Chapter 13 debtor, Ernest Bennett, objected to a $34,821 proof of claim filed by Ernest Crute, stemming from a dispute over renovation work Bennett performed on Crute's house in Mount Vernon, New York. Both parties offered conflicting testimonies regarding the existence of a written contract, the scope of work, quality, and financial responsibilities. The court found that Bennett successfully rebutted Crute's initial claim. Crute then failed to prove his claim by a preponderance of credible evidence, citing issues with contract authenticity, lack of proof for expenses, and uncorroborated testimony. Consequently, the court granted the debtor's motion to expunge the claim.

BankruptcyChapter 13Proof of ClaimExpungementContract DisputeRenovationCredibilityBurden of ProofPreponderance of EvidenceWritten Contract
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 1984

Claim of Levitan v. American Society for Technicon

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision which awarded benefits to the claimant, the wife of the deceased executive vice-president of Technion University. The decedent suffered a fatal myocardial infarction on April 14, 1979, following acute symptoms on March 27-28, 1979, which he attributed to strenuous effort while working. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending that the decedent's statements were uncorroborated, the injury was not accidental under Workers' Compensation Law, and the Board improperly refused to reopen claims for further testimony. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the claimant's testimony sufficiently corroborated the decedent's statements, that the evidence supported the Board's finding of accidental injury due to strenuous effort, and that denying the reopening of claims was not an abuse of discretion given previous opportunities for evidence presentation. The court also found the uncontradicted expert medical report sufficient to establish causation.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAccidental InjuryMyocardial InfarctionCardiac EventCorroboration of StatementsStrenuous EffortMedical CausationWorkers’ Compensation Law § 118Board ReviewReopening of Claims
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,552 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