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. 2022 NY Slip Op 03300 [205 AD3d 1257]
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Jermaine White, an asbestos handler, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging injuries sustained on the job. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a prior decision, ruling that White failed to provide timely notice of his injury to the employer as required by Workers' Compensation Law § 18. The Board, acting as the sole arbiter of witness credibility, found the employer's representatives' testimony more credible regarding the alleged accident and notice thereof. It further concluded that White failed to demonstrate a lack of prejudice to the employer due to the delayed notice. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, upholding its discretionary power in assessing witness credibility and excusing failures to provide timely notice.

Workers' CompensationTimely NoticeEmployer KnowledgeCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimAsbestos HandlerDebris AccidentShoulder InjuryElbow Injury
References
6
Case No. GOL 0100565
Regular
Oct 15, 2007

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the original finding that his injury claim was barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10), the post-termination defense. Despite the applicant's argument that notice and termination were concurrent, the Board gave significant weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility assessment of the witnesses, who found the defense witnesses more credible. Therefore, the applicant will receive no compensation.

Felipe QuezadaExclusive German Auto RepairState Compensation Insurance FundLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination defenseconcurrent noticeterminationWCJcredibilitypetition for reconsideration
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2007

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Paris Drake petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his New York state conviction for Assault in the First Degree and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree. Drake argued that the trial court violated his due process right to a fair trial and his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation by refusing to recall a witness (Carl Fortner) and by not inspecting a witness's (Witness A) psychiatric records or allowing cross-examination on her mental health. The court first addressed procedural default, finding that state appellate courts did not clearly rely on procedural bars. On the merits, the court denied both grounds for relief, concluding that the trial court's evidentiary rulings were not erroneous and did not deprive Drake of a fundamentally fair trial or his confrontation rights, as the jury had sufficient information to assess witness credibility.

Habeas CorpusSixth AmendmentDue ProcessConfrontation ClauseEyewitness IdentificationPsychiatric RecordsCross-ExaminationProcedural DefaultEvidentiary RulingsAssault First Degree
References
105
Case No. ADJ9002100
Regular
Feb 05, 2015

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Kaiser Permanente's petition for reconsideration of an earlier decision. The Board adopted the findings of the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ), giving significant weight to the judge's credibility determination of the applicant. The WCJ found the applicant's testimony credible, despite minor inconsistencies, and supported by medical opinions from treating and QME physicians. The defendant's arguments regarding the substantiality of the evidence were rejected, and the judge's credibility assessments of defense witnesses were also unfavorable.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationCredibility DeterminationWCJSubstantial EvidencePsychiatric InjurySexual HarassmentLicensed Vocational NurseWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQME
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The defendant, Glenn R. McDowell, facing charges including second-degree murder, moved to suppress the testimony of an eyewitness, Johnnie T. Williams, who had been hypnotized. The defense argued that the hypnosis violated McDowell's due process rights by potentially distorting the witness's memory and hindering cross-examination. Justice William J. Burke reviewed the hypnotic session and expert testimony, assessing whether established safeguards for such procedures were met. The court found substantial compliance with these safeguards and determined that the hypnosis did not irreversibly alter the witness's memory or constitute an improper identification procedure. Consequently, the motion to suppress the witness's statements and potential trial testimony was denied, with the court concluding that hypnosis generally impacts credibility rather than admissibility.

Hypnosis AdmissibilityWitness MemoryDue ProcessCriminal Procedure LawMotion to SuppressCross-Examination RightsEyewitness TestimonySuggestibilityLegal SafeguardsNew York Penal Law
References
1
Case No. ADJ9771745, ADJ9547788, ADJ9805683
Regular
Dec 07, 2016

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Martin Tortoledo's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) findings, giving great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination after observing the witness. No substantial evidence warranted rejecting the WCJ's credibility assessment. Additionally, the Board noted that a single physician's opinion can constitute substantial evidence, even if it conflicts with other medical opinions.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJcredibility determinationsubstantial evidencephysician's opinionGarzaPlaceBARRETT BUSINESS SERVICESPermissibly Self-Insured
References
2
Case No. ADJ1528613
Regular
Sep 22, 2010

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's findings. The applicant's claim that his termination was due to his workers' compensation injury was rejected, as evidence indicated he was terminated for assaulting his supervisor. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility assessments, finding the applicant's testimony lacked credibility compared to defense witnesses. Consequently, the applicant's claim under Labor Code Section 132a was denied.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeCredibility of WitnessGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Labor Code Section 132aCompromise and ReleaseAssault and BatteryInsubordinationCollateral Estoppel
References
1
Case No. ADJ12616197
Regular
Jan 12, 2022

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior finding, and returned the case to the WCJ for further proceedings. The Board found that the original decision, which determined Mr. Stapleton was a partial dependent of the deceased, was not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the WCJ's credibility assessment of Mr. Stapleton and his father was insufficient as their testimony was solely from deposition transcripts and they were not called as witnesses at trial. The Board emphasized that deposition testimony alone is insufficient to establish credibility for a dependency determination.

Death Without Dependents UnitPartial DependentLabor Code Section 4706.5Dependency DeterminationCredibility of WitnessesDeposition TestimonySubstantial EvidenceFurther ProceedingsReconsiderationRescission
References
17
Case No. ADJ8831581
Regular
Oct 07, 2013

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case involved an applicant injured while taking out trash. The defendant employer sought reconsideration of an award finding the injury industrial, arguing the applicant was engaged in horseplay and misrepresented facts. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's injury was industrial. The Board deferred to the judge's credibility assessment, finding the applicant credible and the witness alleging horseplay not so. Even if the applicant rode the cart, it was considered performance of authorized work in an unauthorized manner, not disqualifying horseplay.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial injuryPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardExpediterHorseplayWitness credibilityMaterial fact misrepresentationTrash cartCurb-cut
References
10
Case No. ADJ1063483 (SBR 0342621)
Regular
Sep 07, 2016

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case involves Allied Van Lines seeking reconsideration of a prior order finding their employee, Song Rogers (now deceased), sustained a work-related injury. The employer argued the finding was based solely on the inconsistent testimony of the deceased's husband regarding employment details. The Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's findings that the husband's testimony was credible despite apparent inconsistencies. The Board emphasized the judge's opportunity to assess witness demeanor as critical to the credibility determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAllied Van LinesTransguard Insurance Company of AmericaSong RogersRichard RogersFindings and OrderDarren Bergey M.D.employee statuscredibility determinationdeposition testimony
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 3,611 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