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. ADJ8181938; ADJ8702275
Regular
Apr 10, 2023

KAREN MILLER vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, VENTURA YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued against the statutory 15% increase, the method of evaluating spine impairment, and the inclusion of a sleep disorder. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding no error in the application of the 15% increase or the evaluation of the spine impairment using the ROM method as deemed appropriate by the agreed medical examiner. Furthermore, the Board upheld the finding of an industrially caused sleep disorder, noting that formal sleep studies are not always required for diagnosis and that the physician's rating falls within the AMA Guides.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedVentura Youth Correctional FacilityAdjudication NumbersOccupational Group 214Cervical SpineLumbar SpineBilateral ShouldersGastrointestinal System
References
1
Case No. 08-cv-6567L
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. NYS Department of Corrections Attica Correctional Facility

Plaintiff Stefanie A. Davis, a former employee of the New York State Department of Corrections at Attica Correctional Facility, filed a lawsuit alleging race and gender discrimination and unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. She claimed her supervisor assigned her a disproportionate number of minority inmates, and she faced retaliation after complaining. Defendant's initial motion for summary judgment was granted for all claims except retaliation. Following this, Defendant filed a second motion for summary judgment on the remaining retaliation claim. The court granted Defendant's second summary judgment motion, concluding that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliation, specifically noting the absence of protected activity and materially adverse employment action.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationProtected ActivityAdverse Employment ActionPro Se Litigant
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. Great Meadow Correctional Facility

The decision addresses a habeas corpus petition filed by Robert Reed against Great Meadow Correctional Facility. Reed had been convicted of two counts of first-degree rape in Niagara County, a conviction which was largely affirmed on appeal, though his sentences were modified to run concurrently. He raised four primary grounds for federal habeas relief: insufficiency of evidence, incredibility of witnesses, prosecutorial misconduct, and improper consolidation of indictments during his trial. The court, however, rejected each of Reed's arguments, finding that the evidence presented at trial was constitutionally sufficient, witness credibility was properly within the jury's discretion, no prosecutorial misconduct as defined by precedent occurred, and the joinder of indictments was appropriate. Citing relevant case law, the court determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the joinder and that the jury was properly instructed. As a result, the petition for habeas corpus was dismissed, and a certificate of appealability was denied, as the court found no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Habeas CorpusRape ConvictionInsufficiency of EvidenceWitness CredibilityProsecutorial MisconductJoinder of IndictmentsDue ProcessActual Prejudice StandardFederal Habeas ReliefState Court Conviction
References
18
Case No. ADJ6921831, ADJ9093989
Regular
May 02, 2016

KISCHA LOVING vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION VENTURA YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This order denies Kischa Loving's petition for reconsideration in two workers' compensation cases against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board adopted the reasoning of the administrative law judge's report. No new evidence or arguments were presented to warrant overturning the original decision. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportCalifornia Department of Corrections and RehabilitationVentura Youth Correctional FacilityState Compensation Insurance Fundadministrative law judgedenial of reconsiderationADJ6921831ADJ9093989
References
0
Case No. 525127
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2018

Matter of Maloney v. Wende Corr. Facility

Claimant Shawn Maloney, a correction officer, injured his right shoulder while working at Wende Correctional Facility. His workers' compensation claim was established. Conflicting medical reports from his treating orthopedist, Michael Grant (90% SLU), and an independent medical examiner, Gregory Shankman (50% SLU), led to a hearing. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) credited Shankman's opinion, finding a 50% schedule loss of use (SLU) of the right arm. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this decision. On appeal, the claimant argued the employer waived defenses by not filing a prehearing conference statement, but the court disagreed, noting the claim was not controverted. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported crediting Shankman's medical opinion due to the Board's precedent against duplicative assignments of loss of use values for anterior flexion and abduction deficits.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Arm InjuryShoulder InjuryOrthopedic EvaluationMedical Expert TestimonyConflicting Medical EvidenceAppellate Division Third DepartmentPrehearing Conference Statement RuleWaiver of DefensesMedical Impairment Guidelines
References
8
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 09078 [178 AD3d 1268]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2019

Matter of Donovan v. DOCCS Coxsackie Corr. Facility

Danl D. Donovan, a correction sergeant, sustained a work-related hip injury. His employer, DOCCS Coxsackie Correctional Facility, advanced his wages and sought reimbursement. Following an award for a schedule loss of use, a dispute arose regarding the deduction of attorney fees from the claimant's payment, which the Workers' Compensation Board upheld. While Donovan's appeal was pending before the Appellate Division, the Board issued an amended decision based on a new legal rationale. Consequently, the Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed the initial appeal as moot.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseAttorney Fee DeductionReimbursement DisputeMoot AppealAppellate DivisionWork-related InjuryWage ReimbursementIndependent Medical ExaminerAdministrative Review
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02248 [237 AD3d 1379]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2025

Matter of Jehle v. DOCCS Coxsackie Corr. Facility

William Jehle, a correction officer, sustained a work-related injury, prompting his employer, DOCCS Coxsackie Correctional Facility, to continue paying his full wages. The employer sought reimbursement, and Jehle's attorney filed for counsel fees. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, found a temporary total disability, awarded a credit to the employer for wage reimbursement, and granted counsel fees of $4,300 as a lien against this reimbursement. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, deeming the lien proper under Workers' Compensation Law § 24 (2) (b). The Appellate Division, Third Department, further affirmed the Board's decision, holding that an award for previously unawarded benefits constitutes an 'increase' under the law, and that counsel fees are appropriately a lien against the employer's reimbursement, dismissing arguments of the employer subsidizing fees.

Counsel FeesLien on AwardEmployer ReimbursementTemporary Total DisabilityWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewCorrection OfficerWage ReimbursementStatutory InterpretationClaimant Attorney Fees
References
3
Case No. ADJ8506555, ADJ8506558, ADJ8506584, ADJ8506485
Regular
Mar 24, 2015

MITCHELL BLAIR vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, VENTURA YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Legally Uninsured, Adjusted By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed a previous award finding an applicant sustained multiple industrial injuries. The Board amended the decision to allow the defendant a $4,000 credit for a permanent disability advance and to correct a clerical error regarding indemnity calculation. The defendant's argument challenging the substantial evidence of the agreed medical examiner was not persuasive and their attempt to introduce new evidence was rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerSubstantial EvidenceMedical Record Development
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2000

Gonzalez v. New York State Department of Correctional Services Fishkill Correctional Facility

Plaintiff Mildred Gonzalez, a Hispanic female corrections officer, sued the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), Fishkill Correctional Facility (Fishkill), and several individual defendants, alleging discrimination based on gender, race, color, and national origin, and retaliation under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Gonzalez claimed her co-worker, Herbert Reilly, created a hostile work environment which her supervisors failed to address. The court dismissed the complaint as to Defendant Clark for lack of service, Title VII claims against individual defendants, and state law claims against DOCS and Fishkill. However, the court allowed hostile work environment and retaliation claims against DOCS and Fishkill to proceed and granted leave to amend the complaint to include a negligent supervision claim against Mann and Ercole.

Hostile Work EnvironmentTitle VII Discrimination42 U.S.C. § 1983Gender DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment DiscriminationMotion to DismissMotion to Amend Complaint
References
53
Case No. 02-CV-6666L
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2008

Brown v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF CORREC. SERVICES

Plaintiff, Curtis Brown, a Correction Officer, sued his employer, the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), and several individuals for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, and the New York Human Rights Law. Brown alleged a hostile work environment due to continuous harassment, verbal abuse, and physical violence by white coworkers at Elmira Correctional Facility since 2001, along with retaliatory discipline. Defendants sought summary judgment. The court dismissed claims against individual defendants under Title VII, all claims against Elmira, the State Comptroller, Civil Service, and all constructive discharge claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity or other legal deficiencies. However, the court denied summary judgment on Brown's Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims against DOCS, finding sufficient evidence of fact disputes for these claims to proceed to trial.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIICivil Rights ActSection 1981Section 1983Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion
References
83
Showing 1-10 of 2,450 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