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. ADJ2820557 (RDG 0106325), ADJ3301737 (RDG 0110776)
Regular
Oct 18, 2011

DEAN LAGOE vs. GRASS VALLEY FORD by RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT

The defendant, Grass Valley Ford, petitioned for removal to vacate an order vacating submission, arguing irreparable harm from ongoing temporary disability payments. The WCJ vacated submission due to an insufficient evidentiary record lacking stipulations on temporary disability payments and claimant's claims. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding the WCJ was correct that a sufficient record was needed for a proper decision. The case is remanded for further proceedings to develop the record.

Petition for RemovalVacating SubmissionInsufficient EvidenceTemporary Disability IndemnityIrreparable HarmStipulated AwardsEAMSCumulative TraumaAmended Minutes of HearingStipulation
References
1
Case No. ADJ9060378
Regular
Apr 21, 2014

MELISSA OVERTON vs. THE PAPER BAG PRINCESS, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a dispute over applicant Melissa Overton's deposition, specifically regarding the presence of an employer representative and videotaping. A WCJ vacated a prior submission order to compel a psychiatric evaluation to assess the applicant's fitness for deposition under those conditions. The defendant sought removal, arguing the WCJ erred in vacating submission and ordering further discovery. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order and submission order, and returned the case for reassignment to a new WCJ to resolve the discovery dispute.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionFurther DiscoveryProtective OrdersDeposition LocationEmployer RepresentativePsychiatric EvaluationIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaWCJ Reassignment
References
0
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05840
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2022

Exley v. Cassell Vacation Homes, Inc.

The plaintiff, Bruce Exley, allegedly sustained injuries after falling from a defective ladder while attempting to repair a leak on a roof owned by the defendant, Cassell Vacation Homes, Inc. Exley, who lived rent-free on the property in exchange for maintenance, brought an action against the defendant, citing a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and denied the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the plaintiff successfully demonstrated, prima facie, that the ladder was defective and improperly secured, constituting a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and a proximate cause of his injuries.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentElevated Work SiteSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLabor Law § 240(1)Proximate CauseSafety DevicesDefective LadderAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curtis v. Schlegel Manufacturing Corp.

The plaintiff, a former employee, sought $419 in back vacation pay from the defendant, his former employer, under a collective bargaining agreement. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit in Henrietta Justice Court after being denied recovery through the initial steps of the grievance procedure, but before exhausting the final step of binding arbitration. The Monroe County Court affirmed the lower court's judgment. However, the appellate court determined that the employee failed to exhaust all remedies available under the collective bargaining agreement. Citing legal precedents, the court ruled that an employee must complete the grievance procedure, including arbitration, when the union is willing to pursue the grievance. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously reversed the judgment, vacated the complaint, and dismissed it, without costs.

Vacation Pay DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureExhaustion of RemediesBinding ArbitrationEmployment LawContractual ObligationAppellate ReviewJudgment ReversalComplaint Dismissal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyes Compania Naviera S.A. v. Manumante S.A.

Petitioner Reyes, owner of the M.V. Paean, sought to vacate or modify an arbitration award. The arbitration arose from a consolidated proceeding between Reyes, Manumante S.A., and Czarnikow-Rionda Co., Inc., concerning a loss Czarnikow sustained because the vessel failed to carry a full cargo. The arbitrators directed Reyes to pay Czarnikow directly for a stipulated loss of $27,500. Reyes argued the panel exceeded its authority, citing a lack of privity of contract with Czarnikow. The Court, however, found that a three-party submission agreement, signed by all involved parties, cured any jurisdictional defect by allowing the arbitrators to apportion liability directly. Consequently, the Court denied Reyes' petition.

ArbitrationArbitration AwardVacate AwardModify AwardConsolidated ArbitrationCharterpartyContract LawPrivity of ContractSubmission AgreementPanel Jurisdiction
References
26
Case No. ADJ9398564
Regular
Jun 12, 2018

JEROME POLAND vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The applicant, Jerome Poland, filed a Petition for Reconsideration without his attorney in response to a notice of intention to disallow his claim. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) subsequently issued an "Order Vacating Submission" in response to this petition. Citing WCAB Rule 10859, which allows a WCJ to amend or rescind a decision within fifteen days of a reconsideration petition, the Board dismissed the applicant's petition. This dismissal was based on the WCJ's action in vacating submission within the allowable timeframe.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to DisallowWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeOrder Vacating SubmissionWCAB Rule 10859Amend or ModifyRescindFurther ProceedingsDismissed Petition
References
1
Case No. ADJ8040191
Regular
Sep 18, 2013

JOEL GOODEN vs. HILLS PET NUTRITION, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant petitioned for removal, seeking to overturn an order vacating submission of the case for further medical record development. The administrative law judge (WCJ) had vacated submission to review PQME reports from Dr. Georgis and Dr. Francisco. The WCJ subsequently took the matter off calendar to allow parties to obtain a supplemental report from the PQME reviewing Dr. Francisco's report. As the issue raised by the defendant's petition is now moot due to the subsequent order, the Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal.

Petition for RemovalVacating SubmissionPQMESupplemental ReportWCJOff CalendarMootAppeals BoardWorkers' CompensationCase Development
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Friedman

This case examines whether claimants are eligible for unemployment benefits for a week in July during which they received vacation pay from their employer. The court references a previous decision, *Matter of Miranda* (Catherwood), which allowed such benefits under certain conditions. However, the court highlights that subdivision 3 of section 591 of the Labor Law was amended in 1963 specifically to correct inequities and prevent employees from receiving both vacation pay and unemployment benefits for the same period. Despite the board's finding that the union agreement did not designate a vacation period, the court interpreted the agreement's clauses as designating the first week in July for vacation. The court concluded that upholding the board's original decision would undermine the legislative intent of the 1963 amendment. Consequently, the court reversed the board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsVacation PayLabor LawStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentCollective Bargaining AgreementBoard Decision ReversalRemandWorkers' RightsEmployer Obligations
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Braun v. Carey

This case involves an appeal by defendants from an order denying their motion to vacate a summary judgment previously granted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued for legal services, and the defendants initially denied retainer and services, though their answer contained an inadvertent admission. After the plaintiff obtained summary judgment, the defendants sought to vacate it, arguing they were denied the opportunity to respond to late-served reply affidavits and that triable issues of fact existed regarding the retainer and the extent of services. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion to vacate, but the appellate court reversed, finding that genuine issues of material fact were indeed present, making summary judgment inappropriate. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motion to vacate the original order and allowed them leave to serve an amended answer.

AppealSummary JudgmentMotion to VacateAmended AnswerTriable Issues of FactLegal ServicesRetainer AgreementProcedural ErrorAppellate ReviewCivil Practice Rules
References
0
Case No. ADJ11225851
Regular
Oct 18, 2019

SUZAN ELSHAMI vs. C & A RESTAURANTS INC.; SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION, administered by BROADSPIRE

This case involves an applicant challenging a WCJ's decision regarding a Medical Provider Network (MPN) issue. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to amend the order vacating submission, instructing further record development without vacating submission. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding of injury AOE/COE, a threshold issue, while deeming the MPN development order interlocutory. The Board clarified that for MPN compliance, the network only needs at least three available primary treating physicians of an appropriate specialty within access standards.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalVacating SubmissionFurther Development of RecordThreshold IssueFinal DecisionInterlocutory IssueInjury Arising Out of and in the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)Medical Provider Network (MPN)
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,525 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