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. ADJ18376723
Regular
Oct 09, 2025

Miguel Mejinez vs. Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding an order that rescinded a prior directive for the applicant to disclose medical history under Labor Code section 4663(d). The defendant argued that section 4663(d) compels disclosure upon request and that they suffered prejudice from the applicant's refusal. However, the Board, concurring with the WCJ's recommendation, found that while section 4663 broadened the scope of discovery, it did not expand the methods of compelled discovery, which are limited to oral testimony and records under Labor Code section 5708. Consequently, the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm necessary for removal, concluding that written interrogatories are not an appropriate method for compelled discovery in workers' compensation cases.

Petition for RemovalOrder Rescinding OrderMedical History DisclosureLabor Code Section 4663(d)Previous Permanent DisabilitiesPhysical ImpairmentsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration Adequate RemedyWritten Interrogatories
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 1978

Groner v. Angel Guardian Home

This case involves an action to recover damages for breach of an employment contract due to alleged age discrimination. The parties appealed from an order regarding interrogatories, which was subsequently modified upon plaintiff's motion for reargument. The court dismissed the appeal from the initial order, deeming it superseded. The orders dated March 15, 1978, and May 15, 1978, were modified to include provisions for redacting identifying information from interrogatory answers, limiting the scope of several interrogatories, and mandating strict confidentiality for all disclosures. The court affirmed the orders as modified, emphasizing the need to balance disclosure policies with the confidentiality requirements of the Social Services Law.

age discriminationemployment contractbreachinterrogatoriesdisclosureconfidentialityappellate reviewKings County Supreme CourtSocial Services LawCPLR
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amabile v. City of Buffalo

Estelle Amabile fell and was injured due to a defective sidewalk in the City of Buffalo, caused by a protruding stop-sign post and cracked concrete. She and her husband sued the City, which moved for summary judgment citing a lack of prior written notice as required by the City Charter. Plaintiffs argued for a "constructive notice" exception, but the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's denial, granting summary judgment to the City. This Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that constructive notice cannot satisfy the statutory requirement of prior written notice for sidewalk defects, thus upholding legislative intent to protect municipalities from liability without actual written notice.

Municipal liabilitySidewalk defectPrior written noticeConstructive noticeSummary judgmentStatutory interpretationAppellate reviewNegligencePersonal injuryBuffalo City Charter
References
13
Case No. CA 13-00579
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 2014

PULVER, MICHELLE v. CITY OF FULTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

Plaintiff Michelle Pulver commenced a personal injury action against the City of Fulton Department of Public Works and the City of Fulton after she tripped in a hole covered by plywood near a sidewalk. Defendants moved for summary judgment, citing lack of prior written notice. Plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability, alleging the City's affirmative negligence. The Supreme Court denied both motions, finding no prior written notice but potential factual issues regarding affirmative negligence. The Appellate Division modified the order by granting the defendants' motion and dismissing the complaint. The court held that the prior written notice requirement applied and that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the City engaged in affirmative acts of negligence by creating the defective condition or placing the plywood.

Personal InjuryMunicipal LiabilitySidewalk DefectPrior Written NoticeAffirmative NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPlywood CoverHole HazardOswego County
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1978

Cortlandt v. E. F. Hutton, Inc.

Plaintiff Evelyn Cortlandt, a securities trader, sued E. F. Hutton & Co., Inc. and its employee Henry P. Perrine under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. She alleged false representations regarding her margin account, unauthorized sales of securities to meet margin calls, and erroneous investment advice. Cortlandt claimed an oral agreement that her account would not be subject to margin calls, contradicting a written 'Customer\'s Agreement' she signed. The court found her testimony regarding her intent to avoid the written agreement incredible, upholding the written contract under the parol evidence rule. Furthermore, the court found no evidence that Hutton acted as an 'investment adviser' as defined by the 1940 Act, dismissing that claim. With no federal claims remaining, the court dismissed the entire action, granting the defendant's motion.

Securities FraudInvestment Advisers ActSecurities Exchange ActMargin AccountParol Evidence RuleContract DisputeBrokerage FirmCustomer AgreementDismissalFederal Jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gorman v. Town of Huntington

This case involves Norma and Hugh Gorman suing the Town of Huntington for injuries sustained from a sidewalk trip and fall. The core dispute centers on the Town's defense of lacking prior written notice of the defective sidewalk condition, as required by local ordinances. However, the plaintiffs argued that the Town should be estopped from asserting this defense because a municipal employee instructed a member of the public to send notice to the Department of Engineering Services (DES), which managed sidewalk maintenance and its own record-keeping system. The court affirmed the lower court's denial of the Town's motion for summary judgment, agreeing that the Town was estopped. This decision established a new, narrow exception to strict prior written notice statutes, based on the Town's actions and the public's reliance, and awarded partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, dismissing the Town's affirmative defenses regarding prior written notice.

Prior Written NoticeMunicipal LiabilitySidewalk DefectEstoppelSummary JudgmentNegligenceTrip and FallDelegation of DutiesGovernmental Immunity ExceptionsPublic Safety
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rankin v. Half Hollow Hills Central School District

Claimant, a school bus driver, suffered a work-related injury in November 2007 and filed for workers' compensation benefits in March 2008. The employer contested the claim, arguing that the claimant failed to provide timely written notice within 30 days as required by Workers' Compensation Law § 18. The Workers' Compensation Board, however, found that the claimant had given adequate oral notice and excused the failure to comply with the written notice statute, leading to the employer's appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting that failure to provide timely written notice can be excused if notice could not be given, the employer had knowledge, or the employer was not prejudiced. The court credited the claimant's testimony that she verbally informed both a bus dispatcher and her supervisor shortly after the accident, finding substantial evidence to support the Board's determination of adequate oral notice.

Workers' Compensation Law § 18Timely NoticeOral NoticeExcused NoticeEmployer KnowledgeAppellate DivisionSubstantial EvidenceBus DriverWork-related InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board
References
4
Case No. ADJ7843125
Regular
Nov 14, 2014

LISA DARBY vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES, SEDGWICK CMS

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, which sought to reverse a WCJ's order denying disqualification of a QME. The defendant argued the QME failed to timely submit a supplemental report after reviewing surveillance video, a delay stemming from a verbal request during a deposition, not a formal written one. The Board found Administrative Director Rule 38.1(i) inapplicable as it requires a written request. Furthermore, the Board noted a subsequent deposition could resolve the issue or allow the defendant to renew their motion.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorSupplemental ReportTimelinessDepositionSurveillance VideoAdministrative Director Rule 38.1(i)Verbal RequestMoot IssueRenew Motion
References
2
Case No. ADJ2904305 (GOL 0095697) ADJ1827151 (GOL 0095698)
Regular
Aug 02, 2010

GUADALUPE CARRILLO vs. SAN ANTONIO VILLAGE HOA, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration regarding a disallowed lien balance of $9,349.46. The claimant, a doctor, failed to obtain required written authorization for work hardening services billed under CPT Code 97545. Despite a claim of verbal authorization and a general request for multiple modalities, the Board found the lack of specific written authorization for the disputed services to be determinative. Therefore, the administrative law judge's disallowance of the lien balance was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseWork hardeningWork conditioningCPT Code 97545Prior authorizationVerbal authorizationWritten authorization
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kempel v. Nichols

This case involves appeals from multiple decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board concerning a claimant's accident, causal relationship, and excused failure to provide timely written notice. The Board found that the claimant's immediate supervisor, Ed Miller, had knowledge of the accident, which justified excusing the lack of written notice. The appellate court reviewed the Board's determination and found substantial evidence to support its findings. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decisions, with costs awarded to the Workers’ Compensation Board against the employer and its insurance carrier.

Workers' CompensationNotice of InjurySupervisor KnowledgeCausal RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionExcused NoticeTimely NoticeEmployer Liability
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 299 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