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

Weiner v. City of New York

Mark Weiner, an emergency medical technician for the Fire Department of the City of New York, was injured on municipal property in Brooklyn in 2007. He sought workers' compensation benefits and also filed a lawsuit against the City of New York and the New York City Parks & Recreation Department, alleging both common-law negligence and a violation of General Municipal Law § 205-a. The City defendants moved to dismiss, citing the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied this motion. On appeal, the court reversed the lower court's decision, holding that the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provision takes precedence over General Municipal Law § 205-a (1), thereby barring Weiner's claims against his municipal employer. Additionally, the court ruled that Weiner's common-law negligence claim was also barred.

Workers' CompensationGeneral Municipal LawFirefighter's RuleEMT InjuryMunicipal LiabilityExclusive RemedyStatutory InterpretationNegligence ClaimPersonal InjuryPublic Employees
References
25
Case No. ADJ3871921 (VNO 0465854) ADJ1014317 (VNO 0465855) ADJ904688 (VNO 0385116)
Regular
Jun 09, 2009

YOLANDA CASANOVA vs. NORCO DELIVERY SERVICES, CAMBRIDGE PASADENA, AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS FRESNO, CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION in liquidation and administered through BROADSPIRE on behalf of CIGA, CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over vocational rehabilitation benefits after the repeal of Labor Code Section 139.5. The defendant argues the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) lacks jurisdiction for benefits awarded after the repeal. The WCAB granted reconsideration to align with its en banc decision in *Weiner v. Ralphs Company*, which addresses the jurisdictional impact of the statutory repeal. The Board rescinded the prior award and returned the case for further proceedings pending the *Weiner* decision.

Labor Code Section 139.5Vocational RehabilitationJurisdictionRepealReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardEn Banc DecisionAmicus CuriaeRetroactive Benefits
References
1
Case No. ADJ1644350 (SFO 0474033)
Regular
Jan 20, 2010

ESPERANZA JACKSON vs. SAN FRANCISCO MARRIOTT, MARRIOTT CLAIMS SERVICES

This case concerns an applicant's petition for reconsideration of a decision to rescind a retroactive VRMA award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's (WCJ) finding. The WCJ determined, based on the precedent set in *Weiner v. Ralphs Company*, that the Rehabilitation Unit award was not final before January 1, 2009, due to a pending defendant's appeal. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, finding the *Weiner* decision controlling and binding until higher court review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRehabilitation UnitVRMAAppealWeiner caseCalifornia Supreme CourtWrit of Reviewcontinuing jurisdictionen banc decision
References
2
Case No. ADJ337399: MON 0297231
Regular
May 15, 2009

MARIA MEJIA vs. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision that awarded vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance benefits. Defendant argued the WCJ lacked jurisdiction because the vocational rehabilitation statute was repealed effective January 1, 2009. The WCAB is holding this case pending its en banc decision in *Weiner v. Ralphs Company*, which addresses the same jurisdictional issue. The WCAB rescinded the prior award and returned the matter to the trial level for a new decision consistent with the forthcoming *Weiner* ruling.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational RehabilitationLabor Code Section 139.5ReconsiderationEn Banc DecisionJurisdictional IssueRepeal of StatuteVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceWCJAmicus Briefs
References
2
Case No. ADJ2477078 (SAC 0271339)
Regular
Aug 28, 2009

Frances Carlson vs. Blue Cross of California, California Insurance Guarantee Association (for Fremont, in Liquidation)

This case concerns applicant Frances Carlson's claim for vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) benefits stemming from a cumulative trauma injury ending October 16, 1996. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and reversed the trial judge's award of VRMA. This decision was based on the en banc rulings in *Weiner I* and *Weiner II*, which held that the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5 terminated rights to vocational rehabilitation benefits for awards not final before January 1, 2009. Since Carlson's VRMA claim was not final before that date, the WCAB found it lacked jurisdiction and rescinded the award.

CIGAFremont in liquidationcumulative traumaVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMANotice of Potential EligibilityNOPELabor Code section 139.5Weiner v. Ralphs Companyvested rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weiner v. Pruzan

This case concerns an action brought by a plaintiff business seeking to restrain a defendant union from picketing and to claim damages. The plaintiff also moved for a temporary injunction, while the defendant cross-moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action. The court denied the temporary injunction because the picketing had ceased. However, the court proceeded to evaluate the cross-motion to dismiss, ruling that the complaint sufficiently alleged unlawful acts by the union. The court determined that picketing aimed at coercing employees into joining a union, rather than legitimate organization, does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to enjoin such acts. Consequently, the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint was denied, allowing the plaintiff's action to continue.

Labor DisputePicketingInjunctionUnion CoercionUnlawful ActsJurisdictionMotion to DismissTemporary InjunctionCollective BargainingEmployer-Employee Relations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 1996

Wilson v. Gerstenzang, Weiner & Gerstenzang

This legal malpractice action concerned plaintiffs' claim that defendant Michael E. Mine negligently failed to timely commence an intentional tort action against Christopher Akers, who allegedly kicked plaintiff Leonard W. Wilson, Jr. Akers was a 50% shareholder of cav-ark Builders, Wilson's employer. Wilson disregarded Mine's advice and continued to accept workers' compensation benefits for his injuries. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that Wilson's acceptance of workers' compensation benefits precluded him from pursuing a separate intentional tort claim against his employer, Akers. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the legal malpractice action lacked merit because the underlying action would not have succeeded.

Legal MalpracticeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsIntentional TortStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityElection of RemediesAppellate ReviewAttorney NegligenceCivil Damages
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weiner v. Cataldo, Waters & Griffith Architects

The plaintiff, a 71-year-old drafter, was employed by the defendant, initially as an independent contractor and later as a regular employee. He was discharged in December 1989. The plaintiff sued for age discrimination under Executive Law article 15 and for unpaid FICA taxes. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on both claims. On appeal, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment for the age discrimination claim, finding the plaintiff failed to show replacement by a younger person, direct evidence of discriminatory intent, or statistical evidence. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the FICA tax claim, stating that the plaintiff's employment status for tax purposes needed further determination.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawFICA TaxesIndependent ContractorWrongful DischargeBurden of ProofDiscriminatory IntentStatistical EvidenceAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 5070 1647
Regular Panel Decision

Weiner v. Glenman Industrial & Commercial Contractor Corp.

Claimant, an assistant project manager, sustained work-related injuries to her back, neck, and left shoulder, leading to a permanent partial disability classification. The employer, Glenman Indus. & Commercial Contr., and its carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, citing claimant's preexisting asthma as a contributing factor to a materially greater disability. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially granted this application, but the Special Disability Fund appealed the decision. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence that the claimant's asthma constituted a permanent impairment that hindered her job potential. Consequently, the court determined the Board's finding of substantial evidence for reimbursement was incorrect and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting Permanent ImpairmentMaterially and Substantially Greater DisabilityJob Potential HindranceSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate DivisionAsthma ConditionPermanent Partial Disability
References
8
Case No. ADJ347040
En Banc
Apr 14, 2009

LAWRENCE WEINER vs. RALPHS COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to study the legal issues presented by the defendant's petition, specifically concerning the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5, and has ordered the allowance of amicus curiae briefs to address the jurisdictional questions.

Amicus briefsEn banc decisionVocational rehabilitationVRMARepeal of statuteLabor Code section 139.5JurisdictionRetroactive benefitsFindings and AwardWCJ
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 22 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