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

Video Aid Corp. v. Town of Wallkill

The case discusses whether Video Aid Corp. should be reimbursed for an unconstitutional $27,000 water sewer tap-in fee paid to the Town of Wallkill to obtain a building permit. This dissenting opinion, authored by Bellacosa, J., argues that the Appellate Division's order for reimbursement was correct, stating that the payment was made under legal duress. The dissent highlights that the Town unlawfully exacted the fee, impeding Video Aid's business expansion, and that Video Aid's immediate lawsuit constituted "authentic resistance." It draws on precedents affirming that municipalities cannot manipulate responsibilities for revenue generation and that involuntary payments, even without formal protest, warrant recovery, ultimately advocating for affirmance of the reimbursement order.

Unconstitutional feeLegal duressInvoluntary paymentBuilding permitMunicipal feesReimbursementTown of WallkillVideo Aid Corp.Business expansionAppellate Division
References
11
Case No. ADJ7253570
Regular
May 20, 2015

MICHELLE FELDHAKE vs. HOLLYWOOD VIDEO, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant, Michelle Feldhake, and defendants Hollywood Video and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The defendants petitioned for removal of an order that closed discovery and set the case for trial, arguing it would cause irreparable harm by preventing them from obtaining vocational evidence. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the order, and returned the case to the trial level due to ambiguity regarding the timing of the applicant's vocational expert's report. This action allows defendants to potentially obtain and present their own vocational evidence.

Petition for RemovalDiminished Future Earning CapacityVocational ExpertClosing DiscoveryDue ProcessIrreparable HarmVocational EvidenceMandatory Settlement ConferenceFindings Award and OrderHome Healthcare
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. ADJ924734 (MON 0299710)
Regular
Feb 07, 2014

VARDAN ESSAIAN vs. CAD FABULOUS, INC., STATE FARM CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an award of 100% permanent disability, finding the evidence did not justify an unapportioned award. The Board cited concerns regarding the apportionment of psychiatric disability and the impact of sub rosa video evidence on the applicant's claimed limitations. The case is remanded for further development of the record, specifically regarding the psychiatric AME's apportionment reasoning and the vocational experts' conclusions in light of the video evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationAmended Findings of Fact and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentCumulative TraumaAgreed Medical ExaminerPsychiatryOrthopedicsSub Rosa Video
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rose v. Mendon Leasing Co.

Plaintiffs Sylvan D. Rose and Orville Sterling, two African-American males, sued their former employer, Mendon Leasing Co., for racial discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, following their termination for allegedly stealing gasoline. Mendon moved for summary judgment, arguing a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination backed by video surveillance. The plaintiffs claimed disparate treatment and pretext, asserting that Caucasian employees engaged in similar conduct without discipline, and alleged tampering with video evidence. The Court found that Mendon met its burden by showing a legitimate reason for termination, and plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of discrimination or to rebut Mendon's evidence. Consequently, the Court granted Mendon's motion for summary judgment on the federal claims and dismissed the entire complaint, declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Disparate TreatmentPretextFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56Wrongful Termination
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2004

Ulloa v. Universal Music and Video Distribution Corp.

Plaintiff Demme Ulloa initiated legal action against Universal Music and Video Distribution Corp., Island Def Jam Music Group, Roc-A-Fella Records, LLC, and Shawn Carter, alleging copyright infringement, false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, unjust enrichment, joint authorship, and an accounting of sales. Ulloa claimed to have spontaneously created a vocal counter-melody for Shawn Carter's song "Izzo (H.O.V.A.)" which was later used without proper credit or compensation. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the claims of joint authorship and Lanham Act violations, dismissing them. However, it denied both parties' motions for summary judgment regarding copyright infringement, citing unresolved factual disputes concerning originality, work-for-hire status, and implied license. Additionally, the defendants' motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim and to bifurcate the trial were denied.

Copyright InfringementLanham ActUnjust EnrichmentJoint AuthorshipSummary JudgmentWork for HireImplied LicenseMusical CompositionSound RecordingOriginality
References
31
Case No. ADJ10775296
Regular
Nov 30, 2018

SMM SICAIROS vs. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Whole Foods Market seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the judge's award of additional temporary disability indemnity. The defendant's claim that the award was procured by fraud based on surveillance video was rejected because the defendant failed to disclose the video before the hearing, violating procedural rules regarding newly discovered evidence. Therefore, the defendant's petition was denied for failing to meet the requirements for submitting new evidence.

Sub rosaPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary DisabilityMedical Provider NetworkQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code section 5903(d)Appeals Board Rule 10856Newly discovered evidenceFraud
References
0
Case No. ADJ1850137
Regular
Aug 14, 2012

CARMEN GARCIA vs. MISSION HOSPITAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, SEDGWICK CMS

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the judge's decision that found no permanent disability. The applicant argued the judge improperly relied on Dr. Cook's medical reports, which she claimed lacked substantial evidence and admissibility. However, the Board adopted the judge's report, emphasizing the weight given to credibility findings and noting that Dr. Cook's reports were supported by other physicians' findings and subrosa video evidence. This video demonstrably challenged the applicant's claims of limitations, contradicting her testimony about needing wrist supports for routine activities.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMission Hospital Regional Medical CenterSedgwick CMSReconsiderationLabor Code section 5313Smales v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.CredibilitySupplemental PetitionSummary of Evidence
References
2
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
0
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
4
Showing 1-10 of 10,543 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