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. 99-CV-1607
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2000

Gardner v. Honest Weight Food Cooperative, Inc.

Plaintiff Leslie Gardner sued Honest Weight Food Cooperative, Inc., William Zeitlow, Maryanne Winslow, and Michael Toye for employment discrimination based on Jewish ethnicity, religion, and gender under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as well as state law claims under N.Y.Exec.Law § 296 and defamation. Defendants moved to dismiss the federal claims due to the untimely filing of the Title VII complaint and argued that at-will employment could not form a contractual basis for the § 1981 claim. Defendants also sought to dismiss state law claims, including defamation. The court denied all motions to dismiss, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding the timely receipt of the Right-To-Sue letter for the Title VII claims and deferring the § 1981 at-will employment issue pending a Second Circuit decision. The court also found the state law defamation claim sufficiently pleaded.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Section 1981N.Y. Executive Law § 296DefamationSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissTimelinessRight-To-Sue Letter
References
51
Case No. ADJ4702650 (MON 0094741), ADJ1144686 (MON 0124794)
Regular
2012-2011

ANA SAMI vs. HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board partially granted reconsideration, reversing most penalties for unreasonable delay and sanctions against the applicant's attorney, finding insufficient evidence for these claims. However, they affirmed the WCJ's finding of unreasonable delay regarding Weight Watchers coupons, deferring the penalty amount for further determination. The Board also affirmed that the applicant's attorney is entitled to fees for enforcing the medical treatment award related to the coupons. The matter was returned for further proceedings on the penalty amount and attorney's fees.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardPenaltiesSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Labor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5814.5Unreasonable DelayMedical Treatment
References
1
Case No. ADJ1768236 (VNO 0353137) ADJ4711027 (VNO 0353138)
Regular
Apr 22, 2011

JAMES BISHOP vs. SCHINDLER ELEVATOR COMPANY, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits for industrial injuries sustained from 1970 to 1996. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the WCJ's Supplemental Findings and Award. While affirming the award for a sleep disorder evaluation, internal medical evaluations, a raised toilet seat, grab bars, and a Weight Watchers program, the Board reversed the WCJ's decision regarding housekeeping, gardening, and pool services, finding them not to be medical treatment. The issues of penalties for unreasonable delay and attorney fees were deferred for further proceedings at the trial level due to a lack of detailed analysis by the WCJ.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental Findings and AwardWCJHypertensionSleep DisorderFuture Medical AwardJurisdictional PeriodLabor Code Section 5814Penalties
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pizzo v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Kathleen Pizzo appealed the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's final determination denying her disability insurance benefits. The District Court reviewed the ALJ's decision, which had assigned no weight to the treating physician's opinion and significant weight to a consulting physician's report. The court found that the ALJ erred by failing to give appropriate weight to the treating physician's opinion, not adequately developing the administrative record to obtain missing medical notes, and giving undue weight to the consulting physician's report which did not explicitly support the capacity for sedentary work. Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with the District Court's decision, granting the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent of the remand and denying the Commissioner's cross-motion.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkMedical EvidenceRemandSubstantial EvidenceRecord Development
References
23
Case No. ADJ7258268
Regular
Dec 20, 2013

PATRICIA SMITH vs. WELLPOINT HEALTH NETWORKS, INC.; and ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the original award. The Board found substantial evidence supported the necessity of a Jenny Craig weight loss program, including special diet food products, as reasonably necessary treatment. This was based on the applicant's need to lose weight for industrial back surgery and the program's proven success, evidenced by the applicant's 54-pound weight loss. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report and recommendation in its entirety.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationDENIEDJenny Craigweight loss programspecial diet food productsreasonably necessary treatmentindustrial back surgerysubstantial evidencemedical treatment
References
2
Case No. ADJ9725074
Regular
May 25, 2016

RAFAEL GIL vs. WEBCOR BUILDERS, ZURICH INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision finding the applicant sustained an industrial injury to his head, neck, back, and right shoulder. The Board upheld the award of temporary disability, finding the applicant's testimony credible, supported by medical evidence. Defendants argued insufficient evidence for temporary disability, but the Board found no contrary evidence of substantial weight. The WCJ's findings on credibility and factual determinations were given great weight and were affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary Disability IndemnityWCJCredibility DeterminationsIndustrial InjuryContrary EvidenceAffirm DecisionScott Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
0
Case No. ADJ2312621
Regular
Feb 24, 2014

MARCELINO SANCHEZ vs. TONY LUNA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an award to Marcelino Sanchez for injuries sustained while working as an apartment manager. Despite applicant's credibility issues, the Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings, particularly regarding the admission of a police report detailing the incident. The defendant's arguments regarding applicant's employment status and the weight of evidence were found unpersuasive. The Board also denied the defendant's request to augment the record with an attorney's declaration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJCredibilityGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Supplemental ParagraphAugment the RecordDefense Attorney's DeclarationApartment ManagerUninsured Employer
References
2
Case No. ADJ8223604
Regular
Nov 14, 2013

DEEANNA FOBBS vs. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Dee Anna Fobbs' petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's report and recommendations, finding that the applicant did not sustain an injury to her right knee arising out of and in the course of employment. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings and concluded that the overwhelming weight of the evidence supported the WCJ's decision. Applicant's claims of impeachment errors, improper denial of testimony, and adverse inference for destroyed evidence were rejected.

DEEANNA FOBBSUC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTERSEDGWICK CMSPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDENIEDWCJ REPORTGARZA V. WORKMEN'S COMP. APPEALS BD.WITNESS STATEMENTSIMPEACHMENTADMISSIBILITY
References
1
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05844 [232 AD3d 1044]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2024

People v. Baez

Defendant Saul Baez was convicted of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree, stemming from allegations of sexual contact with a victim under 13. He appealed the judgment, arguing legal insufficiency of evidence and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the verdict regarding the weight of the evidence but reversed the judgment. The court found a Brady violation due to the prosecution's failure to timely disclose caseworker notes containing impeaching material, ruling that the delayed disclosure and the adverse inference charge were insufficient remedies. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for a new trial.

Sexual OffensesChild Sexual AbuseCourse of Sexual ConductBrady ViolationRosario MaterialDisclosure ObligationsImpeachment EvidenceAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceLegal Sufficiency
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paul C. v. Tracy C.

This case concerns an appeal by a father against a Family Court order granting custody of his two children to the mother. The father contended that the court erred by not ordering psychological or social evaluations, that the Law Guardian provided inadequate representation by not requesting such evaluations or calling witnesses, and that the custody decision for the mother was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, finding that the decision regarding evaluations was within the court's discretion, the Law Guardian actively represented the children's best interests, and the Family Court's custody determination was supported by the evidence and accorded great weight.

Child CustodyParental RightsVisitation RightsPsychological EvaluationLaw Guardian RepresentationBest Interests of the ChildAppellate ReviewFamily Court DiscretionCustody DisputeEvidence Weight
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 524 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