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

Mayfield v. Employers Reinsurance Corp.

Calvin A. Mayfield claimed a July 24, 1973, injury while working for Texas Tubular Products, which was appealed by their insurer, Employers Reinsurance Corporation. The case centered on the admissibility of evidence regarding Mayfield's prior injuries and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's finding that he was not injured on the date in question. Mayfield's treating physician linked his condition to the 1973 injury, while the defense introduced evidence of other injuries and testimony suggesting no injury occurred on July 24, 1973. The jury found Mayfield was not injured, leading to a take-nothing judgment, which the appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the jury's finding.

Workmen's CompensationAdmissibility of EvidenceOther InjuriesSole Producing CauseJury FindingSufficiency of EvidencePrior ClaimsSettlementsLump Sum RecoveryHardship
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 1998

People v. Davis

The defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree after a jury trial in Broome County, stemming from a 1997 robbery of a Giant Market where he was accused of aiding and abetting the actual robber. The defendant appealed, challenging the conviction on grounds of legal sufficiency and the weight of the evidence. The appellate court reviewed the circumstantial evidence presented at trial, including witness testimonies and physical evidence found at the defendant's apartment. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that a rational trier of fact could find the defendant an accomplice and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. A procedural issue concerning the jury's request to replay a surveillance videotape was also addressed, but deemed unpreserved for appellate review.

RobberyFirst DegreeAccompliceCircumstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceJury DeliberationsProcedural ErrorPreservation Rule
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Asberry v. Aetna Insurance Co.

Annie Mae Asberry, an employee, sued Aetna Insurance Company for worker's compensation benefits after a fall at work resulted in a knee injury. A jury found temporary total loss of use of her leg from September 1977 to March 1978, and a 55% permanent partial loss thereafter. Asberry appealed the jury's findings, arguing they were against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, citing conflicting medical testimonies from Dr. Gunn and Dr. Mahon. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the jury was within its province to resolve conflicting evidence and the findings were not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The court also addressed and overruled a point of error regarding the admissibility of evidence about refused employment, finding it permissible due to the appellant's own testimony.

Worker's CompensationKnee InjuryPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceMedical TestimonyConflicting EvidenceJury VerdictPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total Disability
References
5
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. 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. 2023 NY Slip Op 03928 [218 AD3d 790]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2023

People v. Carlton

The defendant, Victor A. Carlton, appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree and unlawful possession of marihuana. His appeal raised contentions regarding the prosecutor's peremptory challenges to prospective jurors, alleging pretextual discrimination, which were found to be unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant also argued that an interpreter's allegedly inaccurate translation deprived him of a fair trial, but the court found this contention without merit after inquiry. Furthermore, the defendant challenged the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence for his robbery convictions. The court found the evidence legally sufficient and the verdict not against the weight of the evidence. Lastly, the conviction for unlawful possession of marihuana was dismissed as academic due to operation of law.

Robbery First DegreeUnlawful Possession MarihuanaPeremptory ChallengeBatson ChallengeJury SelectionInterpreter AccuracyLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewCriminal Procedure
References
21
Case No. KA 13-00457
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2014

WOOLSON, SKIPPY B., PEOPLE v

The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, affirmed the judgment of the Oswego County Court, convicting Skippy B. Woolson of four counts of criminal sexual act in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying an initial adjournment request due to defense counsel's illness, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division found no prejudice from the denial of the adjournment and rejected the ineffective assistance claim, stating the defendant failed to demonstrate a lack of strategic explanations for counsel's actions or that motions would have succeeded. The court also concluded that the evidence was legally sufficient and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. A dissenting opinion argued that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, citing the victim's mental illness, past false accusation, potential motivation to lie, and inconsistencies regarding the timeline and disclosure of abuse.

Criminal Sexual ActEndangering Welfare of a ChildAdjournment RequestAbuse of DiscretionIneffective Assistance of CounselLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewSexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome
References
23
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05204
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2025

People v. Martin

David Martin was convicted of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and assault in the third degree after a jury trial. On appeal, Martin challenged his convictions, arguing violations of the Second Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and contesting the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the judgment. The court found that Martin lacked standing to assert facial and as-applied challenges to Penal Law § 265.03 (3), and his arguments failed on the merits. It also determined that the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen did not invalidate New York's entire licensing scheme or the permissive presumption under Penal Law § 265.15 (4). Furthermore, the court concluded that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove intent to use a loaded firearm unlawfully under Penal Law § 265.03 (1) (b) and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The denial of Martin's CPL 30.30 motion was also deemed proper.

Criminal Possession of WeaponSecond DegreeAssault Third DegreeSecond Amendment ChallengeStandingAs-Applied ChallengeFacial ChallengePenal Law § 265.03Sufficiency of EvidenceWeight of Evidence
References
17
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. 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 15,305 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