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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The case involves an appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier from a Chancellor's award of worker's compensation benefits to an employee who developed a mental disability after being raped at her workplace. The defendants argued the injury did not arise out of employment and that the permanence of the disability was not competently proven. The Court applied the "street risk" doctrine, concluding the rape was a hazard of employment due to the plaintiff's visible identification with her work and exposure to the public. While affirming compensability, the Court remanded the case for a physician's opinion on the duration of the plaintiff's disability, as current expert psychological opinions were deemed insufficient for proving permanence.

Post-traumatic Stress SyndromeWorkplace RapeMental Disability BenefitsWorker's Compensation AppealStreet Risk DoctrineCompensability of AssaultsEmployment-Related InjuryMedical Opinion SufficiencyPermanence of DisabilityRemand for Expert Testimony
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2006

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

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The claimant, a night shift direct care worker, was assaulted and raped by a stranger in her workplace at the Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services, Inc. in 1997. The Board determined that her injury did not arise out of her employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The court found no causal link between the claimant's employment and the attack, noting it did not occur while she was performing duties, the building was not identified as her specific workplace, the assailant was not a coworker, and there was no employment-related motivation or increased risk from her work environment.

Assault in workplaceRapeInjury arising out of employmentCourse of employmentCausal relationshipWork environment riskEmployer liabilityWorkers' Compensation Board appealUnidentified assailantOff-duty injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Plaintiff Evelyn Melo, an employee of Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services, Inc. (JBFCS), filed a tort action after sustaining personal injuries from an attack, rape, and robbery at her workplace. JBFCS moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the Workers' Compensation Law provides the exclusive remedy for such injuries. Melo cross-moved, arguing that her injuries were not "accidental workplace injuries" and therefore fell outside the purview of workers' compensation. The court analyzed the Workers' Compensation Law, specifically §§ 10, 11, and 21, and relevant case law regarding "accidental injury" and its exceptions. The court determined that Melo was indeed an employee, the incident occurred during her employment, and she failed to demonstrate that the Workers' Compensation Law did not preempt her tort action. The court granted JBFCS's motion to dismiss and denied Melo's cross-motion, also awarding costs to the defendant.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyPersonal InjuryWorkplace AssaultRape and RobberyMotion to DismissCPLRAccidental InjuryScope of EmploymentEmployer Liability
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The case involves an appeal against a conviction for rape in the first degree, focusing on the sufficiency of corroborating evidence and the adequacy of jury instructions. The appellant contended that the complainant's testimony lacked sufficient corroboration of identity and that the trial court erred in its charge regarding exhibits as corroboration. The majority affirmed the conviction, finding ample corroboration from the complainant's observations and identification, supported by physical evidence. However, the dissenting judges argued that the corroborative evidence was weak and the confusing jury charge on corroboration led to a speculative verdict, necessitating a new trial.

Rape (First Degree)CorroborationJury InstructionsCriminal AppealWitness IdentificationPhysical EvidencePenal LawDue ProcessAppellate ReviewTrial Court Error
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The court addresses motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence related to the plaintiff's immigration status, future lost wages, and medical expenses in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff, an undocumented political asylum seeker named Maliqi, was injured while working. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant for the jury to consider potential economic realities if he is deported, it cannot be used to argue that his status prohibits awards for future lost wages or medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendant is precluded from asserting that the plaintiff was working illegally at the time of the accident. The court also permitted expert testimony from an economist regarding future damages but denied the admission of testimony from the plaintiff's immigration counsel as an expert.

Workplace InjuryUndocumented WorkerPolitical AsylumImmigration StatusLost WagesMedical ExpensesEvidence AdmissibilityMotions in LimineExpert TestimonyEconomic Damages
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The defendant appealed his conviction for rape in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a mentally incompetent person, stemming from sexual intercourse with a mentally impaired victim. Both the defendant and the victim had significant mental impairments, with the defendant functioning at a slightly higher level. The primary issue on appeal was whether the prosecution met its high burden of proving the victim's lack of mental capacity to consent. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, including the long-standing relationship between the defendant and victim, their families' awareness, and evidence of mutual affection. Ultimately, the court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim lacked the mental capacity to consent under the specific circumstances. Consequently, the judgment of conviction was reversed, and the indictment dismissed.

Criminal LawSexual OffensesRape Second DegreeEndangering WelfareMentally Incompetent PersonCapacity to ConsentAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceParens PatriaeSexual Assault
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1987

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

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court, Orange County, convicting him of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree. The defendant argued that the evidence was legally insufficient due to inconsistencies in the nine-year-old victim's testimony and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court found the victim's sworn testimony provided a rational basis for the jury's conclusion, and the evidence was legally sufficient. The court addressed the victim's delayed reporting, minor inconsistencies in her testimony, and conflicting medical expert opinions, ultimately affirming the judgment.

Rape First DegreeSodomy First DegreeSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceChild Victim TestimonyCredibility of WitnessCorroboration of TestimonyDelayed ReportingExpert Medical TestimonySexual Abuse Evidence
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

In this concurring opinion, Judge Abdus-Salaam argues against the majority's expansion of the workplace exception to the warrant requirement, asserting it infringes upon a government employee's reasonable expectation of privacy under the New York Constitution and the Fourth Amendment. The judge contends that placing a GPS device on a personal car to investigate workplace misconduct, even during work hours, requires a warrant. Citing cases like People v Weaver and United States v Jones, the opinion highlights the highly intrusive nature of GPS surveillance, which can reveal extensive personal information. It distinguishes the search of a personal vehicle from workplace searches permitted under O’Connor v Ortega, emphasizing that a personal car is outside the employer's control and traditional workplace boundaries. The opinion warns that allowing warrantless GPS tracking sets a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to widespread electronic surveillance of government employees based on a mere 'reasonableness' standard without judicial oversight.

GPS trackingWarrant requirementWorkplace exceptionFourth AmendmentNew York ConstitutionGovernment employeesPrivacy rightsWorkplace misconductElectronic surveillancePersonal vehicle search
References
11
Case No. ADJ9242655
Regular
Aug 22, 2014

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding treatment outside the Medical Provider Network (MPN). The WCJ correctly granted the applicant's motion to treat outside the MPN because the defendant failed to provide access within the required distance to the applicant's *present* workplace, not just the injury site. The Board affirmed that the term "workplace" in the regulation refers to the employee's current location of regular employment. Therefore, the defendant's argument that they met MPN access standards based on the former workplace was rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMPNPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ8 CCR section 9767.5(b)substantive rightliabilityinjury workplacepresent workplacegeographic location
References
4
Case No. ADJ2901317 (FRE0226671)
Regular
May 02, 2011

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

The applicant sought workers' compensation benefits for a stroke, claiming it arose out of and in the course of employment due to workplace stress. The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) denied the claim, finding no credible evidence that a workplace incident caused the stroke. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the WCJ's decision, concluding that the applicant failed to prove the crucial element of a work-related precipitating event. Both QMEs opined the stroke could be industrially related, but their opinions relied on the applicant's account of a specific workplace argument that the WCJ found unsubstantiated.

AOE/COEindustrial strokeworkers' compensationreconsiderationcausationpre-existing conditionQualified Medical Examinercredibilitysubstantial evidencework-related stress
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 981 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