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

Ficken v. Vocational Education & Extension Board of Suffolk

The petitioner sought review of her employment termination as a secretary by the Vocational Education and Extension Board of the County of Suffolk (VEEB) and requested reinstatement with back pay. She argued that she was discharged without the procedural protections afforded to civil servants under Civil Service Law § 75. VEEB contended that the petitioner was not covered by these protections. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing her reinstatement and back pay. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the petitioner's position, though designated 'unclassified' by Suffolk County, did not fit any category under Civil Service Law § 35, thus classifying it as 'classified' and entitling her to § 75 protections. The court emphasized that the petitioner could not be denied these rights until a proper classification was established.

Civil Service LawEmployment TerminationReinstatementBack PayUnclassified ServiceClassified ServiceCivil Servant RightsDue ProcessArticle 78 ProceedingSuffolk County
References
5
Case No. ADJ8838103
Regular
Dec 11, 2020

STEVE BOSROCK vs. BEN R. WADSWORTH, INC., DBA VALLEY GLASS COMPANY, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award. The Board found the medical evaluator, Dr. Rosenberg, should have the opportunity to review subsequent vocational evidence. This vocational evidence impacted the determination of the applicant's ability to return to the open labor market and benefit from vocational rehabilitation. The case is returned to the trial level for further medical record development and a new final decision.

Permanent DisabilityApportionmentVocational ExpertMedical ApportionmentQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)AMA GuidesWhole Person Impairment (WPI)Functional Capacity EvaluationVocational RehabilitationCompensable Consequence Injuries
References
3
Case No. ADJ600916 (SDO 0348725)
Regular
Apr 06, 2020

DAVID GWIN vs. TOYOTA LIFT, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the prior award and remanded the case for further development of the record. The applicant appealed a $66\%$ permanent disability rating, arguing his diminished future earning capacity was greater due to an inability to benefit from vocational rehabilitation. The Board found that the original record was insufficient to determine if the applicant's medication side effects impacted his ability to work in the open labor market or engage in vocational rehabilitation. Further medical and vocational evaluations are required to address these issues before a final determination can be made on the disability rating.

Permanent Disability RatingDiminished Future Earning CapacityVocational RehabilitationReconsiderationMedical EvaluatorsOpen Labor MarketCrush InjuryOsteomyelitisChronic PainMajor Depressive Disorder
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chinese Staff & Workers Ass'n v. Bloomberg

This case involved a CPLR article 78 special proceeding initiated by various community organizations and residents against the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP). Petitioners sought to annul the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared for a significant rezoning of a 111-block area in Manhattan. They contended that the DCP failed to adequately assess the socioeconomic and cumulative impacts of the rezoning on low-income communities of color. The court, presided over by Walter B. Tolub, J., reviewed whether the agency had conducted a "hard look" and provided a "reasoned elaboration" for its determinations as required by SEQRA and CEQR. Finding no evidence that respondents failed in their obligations, the court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

RezoningEnvironmental Impact StatementSocioeconomic ImpactDisplacementAffordable HousingUrban PlanningCommunity DevelopmentEnvironmental Review Act (SEQRA)City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR)Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP)
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Town of Dickinson v. County of Broome

This case involves cross-appeals from a Supreme Court judgment in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Petitioners challenged the Broome County Legislature's negative declaration of environmental impact for a proposed public safety facility, which included a 400-bed jail and other county offices in the Town of Dickinson, Broome County. The proposed complex was classified as a type I action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), presumptively requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court initially annulled the negative declaration but denied injunctive relief. This appellate court affirmed the annulment of the negative declaration and further directed respondents to investigate and discuss the storage of petroleum/chemical products and sewage treatment capacity within the required EIS, modifying the Supreme Court's judgment. The court also upheld the denial of petitioners' request for injunctive relief, noting that SEQRA mandates environmental review completion before any construction.

Environmental LawSEQRANegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementPublic Safety FacilityBroome CountyCPLR Article 78Cross AppealsAnnulmentInjunctive Relief
References
6
Case No. ADJ6828125
Regular
2016-09-00

JACOB DAVIS vs. O'BRIEN MARKET, INC., WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant Jacob Davis's petition for reconsideration. The Board rescinded the prior award of 39% permanent disability, finding that the trial judge erred in rejecting vocational expert testimony without proper grounds. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings to adequately develop the record regarding the applicant's psychiatric work restrictions and vocational feasibility, particularly concerning the impact of industrial injury versus non-industrial factors.

Petition for ReconsiderationVocational ExpertScheduled RatingPermanent DisabilityPsychiatric Work RestrictionsVocational FeasibilityCumulative InjuryRebuttal EvidenceMedical EvaluatorsApportionment
References
5
Case No. ADJ7454504
Regular
Aug 01, 2019

JANE ELLIS vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES legally uninsured, administered by YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior Findings and Award. The Board found that the agreed medical examiner's opinion on permanent disability was not substantial evidence because it was based on an outdated medical examination and an inaccurate assumption about the applicant's current medications. Additionally, the Board noted that vocational expert reports failed to address the impact of apportionment. The case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to obtain updated medical opinions and address vocational expert reporting deficiencies.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical ExaminerPermanent DisabilityApportionmentSubstantial EvidenceInadequate Medical HistoryVocational ExpertLabor Code Section 5903
References
10
Case No. ADJ1 44848 (GRO 0032874)
Regular
Apr 26, 2016

BILLY BRANHAM vs. ARROYO GRANDE GLASS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board rescinded the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision granting a 63% permanent disability award. This was because the WCJ improperly rejected the vocational expert's opinion regarding the impact of industrial medications on the applicant's ability to compete in the labor market. The Board remanded the case for further development of both medical and vocational records, specifically requesting updated opinions on the side effects of the applicant's medications. This is to ensure a more thorough investigation into the cognitive effects of prescribed drugs on the applicant's work capacity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition to ReopenPermanent Disability AwardVocational ExpertCognitive EffectsIndustrially-Prescribed MedicationsMedical Record DevelopmentApportionmentDiminished Future Earning Capacity
References
8
Case No. ADJ2759648 (AHM 0131385)
Regular
May 14, 2009

ROBERT CHANCEY vs. SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, CIGA by its servicing facility BROADSPIRE for LEGION INSURANCE now in liquidation

In this workers' compensation case, both applicant and defendant petitioned for reconsideration of a prior award granting vocational rehabilitation benefits. Defendant argued the award was invalid due to the repeal of Labor Code Section 139.5, effective January 1, 2009. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original award, and returned the case to the trial level. This action was taken to allow consideration of the impact of recent en banc decisions regarding the repeal of vocational rehabilitation benefits and its jurisdictional implications.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational RehabilitationLabor Code Section 139.5Statutory RepealJurisdictionReconsiderationFindings and AwardRescindedTrial LevelAmicus Briefs
References
1
Case No. ADJ3680333 (LAO 0797706), ADJ1445214 (LAO 0814077), ADJ4283483 (LAO 0885924)
Regular
May 01, 2009

TANNY L. ROBERTS vs. WEBER METALS, AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ASSOCIATES INDEMNITY CORPORATION, FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, AIG CLAIMS SERVICES

Defendant Fireman's Fund sought reconsideration of a Finding and Order that relieved defendant AIG from vocational rehabilitation liability. The WCJ's decision was based on an Agreed Medical Examiner's report stating the need for rehabilitation was solely attributable to a cumulative trauma injury covered by Fireman's Fund. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and returned the case to the trial level. This action was to allow consideration of the impact of Labor Code Section 139.5's repeal on vocational rehabilitation claims.

Vocational rehabilitationCumulative traumaMedical opinionPermanent disabilityRehabilitation UnitSpecific injuryFindings and OrderReconsiderationLabor Code Section 139.5Agreed Medical Examiner
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,014 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