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
Jul 07, 2008

Koebel v. ew York State Comptroller

Petitioner, Rose J.E., sought accidental disability retirement benefits due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from her observation and subsequent emergency duties related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Respondent Comptroller denied her application, citing a failure to provide timely written notice as mandated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 63 (c). The Supreme Court dismissed her CPLR article 78 petition, a decision that was subsequently appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, rejecting the petitioner's arguments that the widely-known events of 9/11, oral notice, her mental state as good cause, or an executive order suspending time limitations, satisfied or excused the notice requirement. The court found that the statute specifically requires notice of the member's injuries and incapacity, which the events of 9/11 alone would not convey. Furthermore, the court found no merit in the arguments regarding oral notice or the applicability of good cause exceptions or the Executive Order to extend the notice period.

Accidental Disability Retirement BenefitsPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder9/11 Terrorist AttacksTimely Written NoticeRetirement and Social Security LawCPLR Article 78Good Cause ExceptionExecutive OrderWorkers' Compensation LawAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ8691809
Regular
Apr 14, 2017

NICOLE BORAGNO vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR - CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S FACILITY CHOWCHILLA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case involves Nicole Boragno's workers' compensation claim against the State of California, CDCR. The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying the admission of a supplemental medical report. The WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the supplemental report inadmissible. This was because discovery had closed at the mandatory settlement conference, and the defendant failed to establish good cause for introducing evidence not previously disclosed. The WCJ noted there was no change in circumstances to warrant the late-filed report, distinguishing it from precedent that allows such reports.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Reconsiderationmandatory settlement conferencediscovery closureLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)good causesupplemental reportPQMEapportionmenttimeliness
References
2
Case No. ADJ3435222
Regular
Sep 08, 2015

Keith Whitmore vs. Metropolitan State Hospital

This case concerns applicant Keith Whitmore's claim for a psychiatric injury allegedly caused by cumulative trauma and personnel actions at Metropolitan State Hospital. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior finding that barred his claim under Labor Code section 3208.3(h), which exempts injuries caused by lawful, good faith personnel actions. The WCAB found that the defendant hospital failed to meet its burden of proving its personnel actions were lawful, non-discriminatory, and in good faith, overturning the prior decision. Therefore, the WCAB found that Whitmore sustained an industrial injury to his psychological system, though his claims for neurological and central nervous system injuries were not disturbed.

Labor Code section 3208.3(h)good faith personnel actionscumulative trauma injurypsychiatric injurypsychiatric technicianMetropolitan State HospitalPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorDepressive Disorder Not Otherwise Specifiedoccupational group number 311Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Morrison

Defendant Rodney Morrison was convicted of RICO conspiracy involving the sale and distribution of contraband cigarettes and illegal firearm possession. The State and City of New York sought restitution as victims of the RICO conspiracy. The Court found the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) applicable. It determined that the State of New York is a direct victim, but the City of New York is not, as its claimed harm was not directly and proximately caused by the specific conduct Morrison was convicted of (lacking New York State tax stamps). Consequently, the State's restitution application is granted in part, limited to tax losses from actual CCTA violations between October 1996 and September 2004, while the City's application is denied. The State must submit further documentation consistent with these limitations.

RestitutionRICO ConspiracyContraband CigarettesTax EvasionMVRAVWPAState Tax LossCriminal SentencingFederal Court DecisionProximate Causation
References
17
Case No. ADJ8181938; ADJ8702275
Regular
Apr 10, 2023

KAREN MILLER vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, VENTURA YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued against the statutory 15% increase, the method of evaluating spine impairment, and the inclusion of a sleep disorder. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding no error in the application of the 15% increase or the evaluation of the spine impairment using the ROM method as deemed appropriate by the agreed medical examiner. Furthermore, the Board upheld the finding of an industrially caused sleep disorder, noting that formal sleep studies are not always required for diagnosis and that the physician's rating falls within the AMA Guides.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedVentura Youth Correctional FacilityAdjudication NumbersOccupational Group 214Cervical SpineLumbar SpineBilateral ShouldersGastrointestinal System
References
1
Case No. ADJ10053603
Regular
Nov 15, 2017

HEATHER HENSLEY vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case involves an applicant seeking to change the venue of her workers' compensation case from Long Beach to San Francisco. The applicant argued that her relocation and retention of a San Francisco law firm constituted good cause for the venue change. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), adopting the WCJ's reasoning, denied the petition for removal, stating that removal is an extraordinary remedy and the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. However, one Commissioner dissented, believing the applicant had shown sufficient good cause for the venue change due to her relocation and San Francisco counsel.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalChange of VenueGood CauseSan Francisco District OfficeLong Beach District OfficeAdministrative Law JudgeSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmLabor Code section 5501.6
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 1996

Labodin v. State

The appellate court affirmed an order from the Court of Claims that granted the claimants' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The defendant, the State of New York, had appealed this order. The court reiterated that Labor Law § 240 (1) mandates the provision of safe scaffolding and other protective devices for workers. The claimants, notably Viktor Labodin, presented evidentiary proof that the State failed to provide proper protection, directly causing injuries. The State's opposition was found to be unavailing, failing to raise a genuine issue of fact. The decision emphasized that once a failure to provide necessary safety devices is established, absolute liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) applies, irrespective of any contributory negligence.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffoldingWorker SafetyAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseCourt of ClaimsContributory Negligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n

This action was brought pursuant to subdivision 1 of section 340 of the General Business Law (the Donnelly Act) seeking injunctive relief and a penalty against the Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association and its individual officers. The defendants, comprised of horse owners and trainers, sought to prevent the unionization of back-stretch employees and lobbied for a legislative pension plan. When their bill failed, members withdrew horses, causing significant racing cancellations and financial losses in 1969. The State commenced this action, alleging an illegal combination in restraint of trade, and a preliminary injunction was granted and affirmed. After a nonjury trial, the complaint was dismissed, which this appellate court affirmed. The court found concerted activity to boycott racing but disagreed with the trial court's finding of a 'labor dispute' exception and that the acts did not create a monopoly, asserting the Donnelly Act's applicability. However, the appellate court ultimately affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, concluding that an injunction was unwarranted due to the passage of time and the State's delay, and denied damages based on laches.

AntitrustDonnelly ActLabor DisputeBoycottHorse RacingInjunctionPenaltyLachesConcerted ActivityTrade Restraint
References
11
Case No. ADJ11319508
Regular
Feb 01, 2019

YVONNE GENTRY vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant claiming a psychiatric injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that actual employment events predominantly caused the applicant's psychiatric injury. The employer failed to prove that any alleged personnel actions were lawful, nondiscriminatory, and in good faith, thus failing to establish a defense against compensability. Therefore, the court found no need for a further analysis of whether such actions substantially caused the injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardpsychiatric injuryactual events of employmentpredominant causearose out of and occurred in the course of employmentAOE/COElawful nondiscriminatory good faith personnel actionaffirmative defenseburden of proofsubstantial cause
References
4
Case No. 2015-1339 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

GBI Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by GBI Acupuncture, P.C. from a Civil Court order granting State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.'s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Term found that State Farm's denial of claim forms for the first four causes of action were untimely, thus reversing that portion of the lower court's decision. However, with respect to the fifth through eighth causes of action, the court affirmed State Farm's practice of using the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors to determine payment for licensed acupuncturists. The order was therefore modified by denying summary judgment for the first four causes of action, and otherwise affirmed. The case cites previous rulings on timely verification requests and the application of workers' compensation fee schedules.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentTimely denialVerification requestsFee scheduleAcupuncture servicesChiropractorsWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewCivil Court order
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 25,162 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