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

Pizzo v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Kathleen Pizzo appealed the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's final determination denying her disability insurance benefits. The District Court reviewed the ALJ's decision, which had assigned no weight to the treating physician's opinion and significant weight to a consulting physician's report. The court found that the ALJ erred by failing to give appropriate weight to the treating physician's opinion, not adequately developing the administrative record to obtain missing medical notes, and giving undue weight to the consulting physician's report which did not explicitly support the capacity for sedentary work. Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with the District Court's decision, granting the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent of the remand and denying the Commissioner's cross-motion.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkMedical EvidenceRemandSubstantial EvidenceRecord Development
References
23
Case No. ADJ11629114
Regular
Sep 16, 2022

KATHLEEN PHILLIPS vs. SHORENSTEIN HAYS-NEDERLANDER THEATRES, LLC, STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and modified a prior decision concerning applicant Kathleen Phillips' industrial hip injury. While affirming the finding that the Qualified Medical Examiner's (PQME) reports lacked substantial medical evidence, the WCAB rescinded the striking of those reports and the PQME's disqualification. The WCAB reasoned that striking reports and disqualifying a PQME requires specific legal grounds not present here, and the determination of substantiality relates to the weight of evidence, not admissibility. The WCAB emphasized that the PQME's reports remain part of the record, with the judge retaining discretion to assign them appropriate weight.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderQualified Medical Examiner (PQME)Substantial Medical EvidenceRemoval StandardThreshold IssueInterlocutory FindingAdmissibility of EvidencePrejudiced
References
5
Case No. 99-CV-1607
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2000

Gardner v. Honest Weight Food Cooperative, Inc.

Plaintiff Leslie Gardner sued Honest Weight Food Cooperative, Inc., William Zeitlow, Maryanne Winslow, and Michael Toye for employment discrimination based on Jewish ethnicity, religion, and gender under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as well as state law claims under N.Y.Exec.Law § 296 and defamation. Defendants moved to dismiss the federal claims due to the untimely filing of the Title VII complaint and argued that at-will employment could not form a contractual basis for the § 1981 claim. Defendants also sought to dismiss state law claims, including defamation. The court denied all motions to dismiss, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding the timely receipt of the Right-To-Sue letter for the Title VII claims and deferring the § 1981 at-will employment issue pending a Second Circuit decision. The court also found the state law defamation claim sufficiently pleaded.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Section 1981N.Y. Executive Law § 296DefamationSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissTimelinessRight-To-Sue Letter
References
51
Case No. ADJ10175683
Regular
Oct 12, 2018

JOSE HERNANDEZ vs. D.F. INDUSTRIES, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant Jose Hernandez's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the findings of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ), who was found to have given appropriate weight to witness credibility determinations. The applicant failed to meet his burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his injury occurred in the course of employment. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportOpinion on DecisionCredibility DeterminationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Burden of ProofPreponderance of the EvidenceCourse of EmploymentLundberg v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ1082547 (LBO 0311990), ADJ3651061 (LBO 0321320)
Regular
Nov 17, 2017

KARLA NEAL vs. J. PAUL GETTY TRUST; ESIS CENTRAL WC CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Karla Neal's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination based on observing the applicant's demeanor during testimony. The applicant's claims of worsening industrial injuries and newly developed psychiatric injury were not supported by substantial evidence or raised appropriately at trial. The WCJ found the applicant lacked credibility, presenting inconsistent histories and making disparaging accusations against medical examiners.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibility determinationAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)orthopedic injuriespsychiatric injurycumulative traumapro persubstantial evidenceindustrial injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ7674144
Regular
Oct 21, 2015

CHERYL FRANK vs. NOVATO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed a prior decision finding that most alleged industrial stressors leading to the applicant's psyche injury claim were not barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The WCAB upheld the administrative law judge's (WCJ) determination that the panel Qualified Medical Evaluator's (PQME) reports lacked substantial evidence and removed the PQME. The WCAB dismissed the defendant's petition for removal, finding reconsideration to be the appropriate remedy and giving significant weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardpsychiatric injuryindustrial stressorLabor Code section 3208.3(d)removalQualified Medical EvaluatorPQMEsubstantial evidencecredibility determinationsPetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Joseph v. Barnhart

Ivan Joseph challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's final determination denying him disability insurance benefits. The court reviewed the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, finding that the ALJ misapplied the treating physician rule by failing to accord appropriate weight to the opinions of Joseph's treating physicians, Dr. Inserra and Dr. Dragon. The court also noted that the ALJ's assessment of Joseph's credibility might be impacted by additional medical evidence. Consequently, the court denied the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted Joseph's motion, vacated the Commissioner's final decision, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsTreating Physician RuleALJ ErrorRemandChronic Back PainDegenerative Disc DiseaseLumbar SpineSpondylolysisMedical Evidence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2001

New York Telephone Co. v. Harrison & Burrowes Bridge Contractors, Inc.

Plaintiff, an entity responsible for submarine telephone cables, sued defendant for damages incurred to its cables during the defendant's construction work in the Hudson River. The defendant's employees were using heavy spud bars to anchor barges, which allegedly caused a cable rupture and subsequent loss of service for plaintiff's customers. Following a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, a decision which the defendant appealed. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the lower court correctly denied summary judgment, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, and the awarded damages were appropriate given the circumstances and plaintiff's reasonable mitigation efforts.

Cable DamageSubmarine CablesNegligenceCircumstantial EvidenceSummary JudgmentWeight of EvidenceDamagesMitigation of DamagesAppellate ReviewConstruction Accident
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cowley v. Berryhill

Plaintiff appeals the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of disability benefits. The District Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) finding that the plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act. The court found that the ALJ properly assessed medical opinions from a treating therapist and a consulting psychologist, giving appropriate weight and providing sufficient explanations. The ALJ's determination of the plaintiff's residual functional capacity (RFC) and the vocational expert's testimony regarding suitable alternative employment were also supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, and the Commissioner's cross-motion was granted.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeMedical Opinion AssessmentResidual Functional CapacityVocational Expert TestimonyMental Health ImpairmentsAsthmaBipolar DisorderMajor Depressive Disorder
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pataki v. New York State Assembly

This Opinion of the Court resolves a significant dispute between the Governor and the New York State Legislature concerning their constitutional roles in the state budget process, affirming the executive budgeting system established in 1927. The Court reinforced the principle that the Governor acts as the budget's "constructor," with the Legislature primarily limited to striking out or reducing appropriation items. In Silver v Pataki, the Court declared the Legislature's actions unconstitutional for attempting to alter the purposes and conditions of Governor's 1998 appropriation bills through subsequent legislation. Similarly, regarding the 2001 budget in Pataki v New York State Assembly, the Court rejected the Legislature's use of "single-purpose bills" to replace Governor's appropriation items and upheld the Governor's authority to include detailed programmatic conditions within appropriation bills. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's orders, deciding the dispute in the Governor's favor and reiterating that all appropriations inherently involve policy decisions, thereby limiting judicial intervention in budgetary content disputes unless clearly non-budgetary.

Executive BudgetingLegislative PowerSeparation of PowersAppropriation BillsLine-Item VetoConstitutional LawNew York Court of AppealsBudget ProcessGubernatorial AuthorityLegislative Alteration
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 1,230 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