Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ3156337 (FRE 0209931) ADJ4199467 (FRE 0209932)

Regular

Nov 20, 2008

FRANK FLORES vs. NICKEL'S PAYLESS STORES, WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINSITRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an award for a 1999 right foot and ankle injury, specifically addressing the defendant's claims of error in permanent disability calculation without apportionment and the exclusion of medical evidence. The Board intends to admit the Agreed Medical Evaluator's reports into evidence, which the WCJ had previously excluded. This decision will allow the Board to review all relevant medical evidence before making a final determination on apportionment and the applicant's claimed injuries.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidencePetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings Award and OrderMinutes of Hearing

References

Case No. ADJ8518632

Regular

May 09, 2017

HORACIO MONTOYA vs. CBC FRAMING, INC., ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, A B GALLAGHER BASSETT

The WCAB granted the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding a prior WCJ order compelling a Functional Capacity Evaluation. Removal was granted because the WCJ's order was based on a medical report that had not been formally admitted into evidence, preventing meaningful review. The Board will now admit the defendant's medical report into evidence for the limited purpose of determining the Petition for Removal. This action is an extraordinary remedy due to the prejudice caused by relying on unadmitted evidence.

RemovalFunctional Capacity EvaluationIndustrial InjuryPrejudiceIrreparable HarmAdmitted EvidenceQualified Medical EvaluationExhibit AAdministrative Law JudgePetition for Removal

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

People v. Fratt

The defendant, charged with second-degree murder, provided notice of intent to present psychiatric evidence from Dr. Martha Rosen, a defense-retained psychologist, who would testify about dependent personality disorder and 'battered woman's syndrome.' The prosecution subsequently moved for an order compelling Dr. Rosen to prepare a report outlining her findings and evaluations, and for the discovery of her notes. The court granted the prosecution's motion, ruling that the defendant waived psychologist-patient privilege by placing her mental state at issue. The court further held that CPL 250.10, read in conjunction with CPLR 3101(d), requires the defense to provide a detailed notice of psychiatric evidence, including expert qualifications, examination details, relied-upon materials, diagnostic opinions, and the bases for those opinions. The court denied the motion for a pretrial hearing as premature.

Psychiatric EvidenceDiscoveryExpert TestimonyPsychologist-Patient PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeCriminal Procedure LawCivil Practice Law and RulesMental StateBattered Woman's SyndromeForensic Evaluation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

May 18, 2005

Hotel 57 LLC v. Harvard Maintenance, Inc.

In this case, the plaintiff hotel sought over $300,000 for replacing 16 scratched windows, attributing the damage to the defendant's window cleaners. The defendant denied responsibility, suggesting the scratches were preexisting. Crucially, the plaintiff destroyed and replaced the windows without notifying the defendant, sixteen months prior to filing the lawsuit. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment based on spoliation of evidence. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing the plaintiff's intentional destruction of evidence critical to the lawsuit, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint.

spoliation of evidencesummary judgmentappellate reviewwindow damageproperty damageintentional destruction of evidencecivil procedureNew York lawconstructionnegligence

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Sun Trading Distributing Co. v. Evidence Music, Inc.

Plaintiff Sun Trading Distributing Co., doing business as Muse Records and Landmark Records, filed a lawsuit against Evidence Music, Inc. and Kenwood Electronics Corp. alleging unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and New York State common law. The core of the complaint revolved around the defendants' alleged unauthorized exploitation of sound recordings by jazz artists John Hicks, Edward “Sonny” Stitt, and Antoine Roney. Sun Trading claimed false designation of origin (reverse passing off) for the Stitt recording and false advertising for the Roney recording, leading to consumer confusion. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Lanham Act claims, finding insufficient evidence of actual or likelihood of consumer confusion. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the complaint.

Lanham ActUnfair CompetitionTrademark InfringementCopyrightSound RecordingsJazz MusicConsumer ConfusionSummary JudgmentSupplemental JurisdictionBreach of Contract

References

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

Case No. ADJ8741844

Regular

Jan 14, 2014

CARLOS MIRANDA vs. PACIFIC EXCHANGE, HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP

The Appeals Board rescinded the prior finding of injury to the applicant's back, concluding it was not supported by substantial evidence. The Board found the medical report relied upon by the trial judge was based on an inaccurate and incomplete history provided by the applicant, inconsistent with other statements and undisputed trial evidence. Therefore, the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury to his back, and the case was returned for further proceedings on other alleged body parts.

WCABReconsiderationFindings of FactLabor CodeStatute of LimitationsIndustrial InjuryAOE/COESubstantial EvidenceInaccurate Medical HistoryIncomplete Medical History

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Racha v. Vernon Racha/Vern's Truck & Diesel Service

The Workers' Compensation Board initially denied a claim for death benefits to a posthumous out-of-wedlock child, arguing a lack of dependency evidence. The appellate court reversed this decision, asserting that while acknowledgment is no longer a statutory requirement for out-of-wedlock children, evidence of a deceased parent's acknowledgment is crucial for establishing dependency, especially when the child is born after the parent's death. The court found that the undisputed testimony of the decedent acknowledging the unborn child, coupled with his plans to marry the mother and provide housing, created a presumption of dependency. This presumption was further buttressed by the mother's subsequent inability to care for the child. The case was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with this court’s decision.

DependencyPosthumous ChildOut-of-wedlock childPaternityWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial AccidentDeath BenefitsAcknowledgmentPresumption of DependencyReversal

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

May 06, 1998

Claim of DePaoli v. Great A & P Tea Co.

Claimant, a grocery store manager, developed a psychiatric disorder due to working prolonged hours and undertaking additional responsibilities necessitated by personnel cutbacks and scheduling changes. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that this condition constituted an accidental injury within the scope of employment, rejecting the employer's contention that it did not meet the definition of 'injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7). The Board concluded that the injury was caused by ongoing job-related stress, not a personnel decision involving disciplinary action, work evaluation, job transfer, demotion, or termination. The court affirmed the Board's amended decision, finding substantial evidence in the undisputed testimony and medical evidence to support the finding of an accidental injury.

psychiatric disorderjob-related stressaccidental injuryworkers' compensationpersonnel cutbacksscope of employmentmental healthemotional injurylabor lawemployer liability

References

DependencyPosthumous ChildOut-of-wedlock childPaternityWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial AccidentDeath BenefitsAcknowledgmentPresumption of DependencyReversal

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

May 06, 1998

Claim of DePaoli v. Great A & P Tea Co.

psychiatric disorderjob-related stressaccidental injuryworkers' compensationpersonnel cutbacksscope of employmentmental healthemotional injurylabor lawemployer liability

References

Showing 1-10 of 10,502 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.