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. ADJ7765356
Regular
Jul 26, 2011

WESLEY CAIN vs. LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Los Angeles Metropolitan Authority's petition for reconsideration. The Authority sought to alter a prior stipulation that awarded applicant Wesley Cain medical treatment for an admitted industrial injury. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the stipulation was a binding agreement. The WCJ determined the language of the stipulation clearly provided for ongoing medical care and the Authority provided no evidence to alter this entitlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeStipulation and Request for AwardMedical treatmentIndustrial injuryMetro train driverSuicide attemptContract principlesBinding agreement
References
1
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03572 [195 AD3d 677]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2021

Cain v. Ameresco, Inc.

Michael C. Cain, a controls technician, was injured after falling from a ladder while installing temperature controls at Central Islip High School. He, along with his wife, sued Ameresco, Inc., the general contractor, and Central Islip Union Free School District, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 241 (6), and 200, and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing some causes of action against the School District and denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and sanctions for spoliation of evidence. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, denying the School District's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action, finding that the School District failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor LawWorkplace SafetySpoliation of EvidenceAppellate DivisionPremises LiabilitySubcontractor Liability
References
15
Case No. 534536
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Wesley Harmon

The claimant, Wesley Harmon, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that determined a 20% schedule loss of use (SLU) of his left arm and reduced his counsel's fee. The Board had credited the opinion of his treating orthopedist, Dr. John Goldblatt, over the employer's independent medical examiner, Dr. Frederick Kaempffe, regarding the SLU percentage, and adjusted Goldblatt's calculation by removing a 10% addition for a rotator cuff tear based on current guidelines. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that its resolution of conflicting medical evidence was supported by substantial evidence and that its exercise of discretion in awarding counsel fees was not arbitrary or capricious.

Schedule Loss of UseLeft Shoulder InjuryRotator Cuff TearMaximum Medical ImprovementWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionMedical Evidence EvaluationAppellate DivisionCounsel FeesIndependent Medical ExamOrthopedic Impairment
References
10
Case No. ADJ8110093
Regular
May 03, 2018

CYNTHIA WESLEY vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

This case concerns applicant Cynthia Wesley's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board denied her petition, upholding the original award of 8% permanent disability for a spine and hip injury sustained while employed as a probation officer. The original award included apportionment to a prior disability award. Wesley argued the WCJ erred in rating her disability and in applying apportionment. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding no grounds for reconsideration of the original award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardindustrial injuryspineright hippermanent disabilityapportionmentLabor Code section 4664prior award
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesley-Dickson v. Warwick Valley Central School District

The plaintiff, Lynnea Wesley-Dickson, an African-American woman diagnosed with cancer, sued Warwick Valley Central School District and several individuals for racial and disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII, Section 1981, ADA, and NYSHRL. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, primarily due to insufficient evidence of discriminatory intent and the defendants' legitimate non-discriminatory reason of documented performance problems. Furthermore, the hostile work environment claims were dismissed as the alleged incidents were not severe or pervasive enough. The NYSHRL claims against the District were also dismissed due to failure to file a notice of claim. Therefore, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was closed.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentEmployment LawSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationTenure DenialPerformance ReviewsSchool Employee
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marcus v. Board of Trustees

This case involved a hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and a declaratory judgment action to challenge Local Law No. 3 (2006) of the Village of Wesley Hills, which authorized additional special permit uses by amending the zoning law. The Supreme Court, Rockland County, had annulled the local law, deeming it unlawful spot zoning. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, denying the petitioners' petition and dismissing the proceeding. The court found that the local law did not constitute unlawful spot zoning and that the Board of Trustees had complied with the State Environmental Quality Review Act and relevant provisions of the General Municipal Law.

Zoning LawSpot ZoningLocal LawCPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentSEQRAEnvironmental ReviewGeneral Municipal LawAppellate ProcedureLand Use
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 1985

Fromson v. Lefever

Appellant Fromson initiated a proceeding to invalidate designating petitions for a Democratic Party primary election in the Town of Clarkstown and County of Rockland. The petitions had a minor discrepancy where the cover sheet stated 1,110 signatures, but 1,118 were actually present, due to an understatement on one page by a subscribing witness. The Rockland County Board of Elections and the Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the understatement of eight signatures out of 1,118 was a de minimis, inconsequential error that did not warrant invalidation, citing Matter of Jonas v Black. The court differentiated this from cases involving significant misstatements and emphasized that strict compliance with Election Law does not negate minor technical errors, especially when there is no potential for fraud or prejudice.

Election LawDesignating PetitionsPrimary ElectionSignature DiscrepancyDe Minimis ErrorStrict ComplianceCandidate InvalidationRockland CountyAppellate AffirmationStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MON 281887
Regular
Jul 11, 2007

ROBERT CAIN vs. VONS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior decision denying a lien claim and returned the case for further proceedings. The Appeals Board found that the administrative law judge erred by not applying the factors established in the en banc decision *Kunz v. Patterson Floor Coverings, Inc.* to determine the reasonableness of the outpatient surgery facility fee. The defendant failed to present sufficient rebuttal evidence under *Kunz*, and the case must now be re-evaluated based on that precedent.

Kunz v. Patterson Floor CoveringsOutpatient surgery facility feesReasonableness of feeMedicare reimbursementOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleLien claimantCompromise and releasePetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

America Rescue Workers, Inc. v. Wesley

The petitioner, a religious corporation, sought to declare licensing ordinances of the Town of Irondequoit unconstitutional and enjoin police interference with its door-to-door solicitations for its mission. Although granted a permit, its solicitors were ordered to cease activities due to complaints of harassment. The respondents questioned the petitioner's religious status and argued the permit was conditional. The court found that the petitioner failed to name the Town of Irondequoit as a party and did not demonstrate adverse effects from the ordinances, thus lacking a basis to challenge their constitutionality. However, questions of fact remained regarding the petitioner's religious status and whether the solicitors' conduct justified police action, leading to the reversal of the judgment and remittal for trial.

Religious corporationLicensing ordinancesDoor-to-door solicitationUnconstitutionalPolice interferenceHarassment complaintsArticle 78 proceedingQuestions of factRemitted for trialMonroe Special Term
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesley v. Long Island Power Authority

The defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which denied their motion for leave to amend their answer to assert that the action against them was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law. The appellate court reversed the order, granted the motion, and deemed the appellants' proposed amended answer served. The court noted a substantial question regarding whether the plaintiff held the status of a special employee and if the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Employee StatusAffirmative DefenseMotion to Amend AnswerPersonal InjuriesAppellate ReversalSuffolk County Supreme CourtPower Authority LitigationPleading AmendmentJudicial Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 33 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