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
May 20, 1993

Ray v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Larry Ray, a maintenance worker, and Blake Willett, an LIRR Police Officer, were involved in a physical altercation where Willett allegedly beat and handcuffed Ray. Ray was later released by Willett's supervisor. Plaintiffs sued Willett and the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) for battery, false arrest and imprisonment, negligent retention, and civil rights violations under 42 USC § 1983. The Supreme Court, Kings County, dismissed claims against the LIRR for negligent retention and civil rights violations and dismissed the complaint against Willett due to defective service of process. The jury found Willett liable for battery and false arrest/imprisonment but not for civil rights violation. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the dismissals, concluding that Willett's conduct was not within the scope of employment and he was not acting under color of state law, and that service upon Willett was indeed defective.

BatteryFalse ImprisonmentCivil Rights ViolationNegligent RetentionRespondeat SuperiorPolice MisconductPersonal JurisdictionService of ProcessAppellate LawKings County
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1997

In re the Claim of Willett

Claimant, formerly an engineer, was granted a trade readjustment allowance (TRA) under the Trade Act of 1974 to pursue legal studies. However, he was suspended from City University of New York Law School for violating CUNY bylaws and the Education Law, leading to the termination of his TRA benefits. Upon reapplying after his suspension, benefits were denied on the grounds that he ceased participation in his approved training program without justifiable cause. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board upheld this denial, citing regulations that define justifiable cause and cessation of participation. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant's violation of school rules did not constitute a justifiable cause for ceasing his training.

Trade Act of 1974Trade Readjustment AllowanceUnemployment InsuranceAppeal BoardJustifiable CauseTraining ProgramSuspensionEducation LawCUNY BylawsEligibility for Benefits
References
2
Case No. SJO 0245781
En Banc

Michael A. Willette vs. AU Electric Corporation, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismisses the applicant's petition for reconsideration, ruling that it was not filed against a final order since the case had been remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalEn Banc OpinionIndustrial InjuryLow Back InjuryTailbone InjuryAlarm InstallerUtilization ReviewQualified Medical Examiner
References
13
Case No. SJO 0245781
Significant

Michael A. Willette vs. Au Electric Corporation, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration, ruling that it was improperly filed against a non-final order which had rescinded a prior decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDismissedEn BancIndustrial InjuryLow BackTailboneAlarm InstallerMedical TreatmentUtilization Review
References
13
Case No. SJO 0245781
Significant

Michael A. Willette vs. Au Electric Corporation, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board, in an en banc decision, outlines the mandatory procedure for resolving post-utilization review medical treatment disputes for unrepresented employees, requiring the use of a panel Qualified Medical Examiner (QME). The prior decision was rescinded and the case was remanded to follow this new procedure.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEn Banc DecisionReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryLow Back InjuryTailbone InjuryAlarm InstallerState Compensation Insurance FundUtilization Review Reports
References
26
Case No. SJO 0245781
En Banc

Michael A. Willette vs. AU Electric Corporation, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, in an en banc decision, holds that medical treatment disputes for unrepresented employees following a utilization review must be resolved by a panel Qualified Medical Examiner (QME). The reports from the QME, treating physician, and utilization review physician are all admissible. The prior award was rescinded and the case was remanded to follow this procedure.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryLow BackTailboneAlarm InstallerState Compensation Insurance FundMedical TreatmentUtilization Review
References
25
Showing 1-6 of 6 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