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

Carmille A. v. David A.

In this Family Court Act article 8 family offense proceeding, the petitioner filed a supplemental petition alleging the respondent willfully violated a modified order of protection on two separate occasions in March 1994. The court found these violations and civilly committed the respondent to consecutive terms of incarceration totaling ten months. The respondent moved for reargument, citing the appellate authority of Matter of Vitti v Vitti, which held that Family Court Act article 8 prohibits consecutive commitments exceeding a total of six months. The presiding judge, Guy P. De Phillips, disagreed with the Vitti ruling, asserting that legislative history and public policy regarding domestic violence support the imposition of consecutive civil commitments for distinct violations, even if the cumulative term exceeds six months, provided they are separate offenses for Sixth Amendment purposes. Consequently, the court denied the respondent's motion for reargument, affirming its authority to impose such consecutive sentences.

Family LawDomestic ViolenceOrder of ProtectionContempt of CourtCivil CommitmentConsecutive SentencesFamily Court ActStatutory InterpretationJudicial DiscretionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1994

People v. Curry

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, convicting him of multiple counts of robbery in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree. The original sentence imposed consecutive terms of imprisonment. The appellate court, in the interest of justice, modified the judgment by directing that certain sentences for robbery and attempted robbery counts run concurrently. As modified, the judgment was affirmed. The court noted that while consecutive sentences for crimes against multiple victims are not improper, the sentence in this case was excessive to the extent indicated. The defendant's remaining contention was unpreserved for appellate review.

RobberyAttempted RobberyConsecutive SentencesConcurrent SentencesAppellate ReviewExcessive SentenceCriminal LawJury VerdictSentencing ModificationKings County Supreme Court
References
2
Case No. ADJ4140441 (VEN 0089494) ADJ1623796 (VEN 0099796)
Regular
Jun 25, 2013

SHARON BARNES vs. JOHN MCNEIL, D.D.S., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a second petition for reconsideration filed by applicant Sharon Barnes, challenging a prior Appeals Board decision. The Board dismissed the petition because it was consecutive or successive. California law prohibits filing a second petition for reconsideration after the Appeals Board has issued a final decision on the record. The proper procedure for challenging such a decision is to petition for a writ of review.

Petition for ReconsiderationAppeals BoardWCJ decisionconsecutive petitionsuccessive petitionwrit of reviewen bancCrowe Glass CompanyNavarroCalifornia Workers' Compensation
References
3
Case No. ADJ3882107
Regular
Oct 04, 2012

PETER ARCARESE vs. LAW OFFICES OF MANUEL H. MILLER, STATE FARM CALIFORNIA, WC CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Peter Arcarese's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The petition was also dismissed as consecutive, attempting to relitigate issues previously addressed after a prior dismissal. Furthermore, the request for removal was denied as Arcarese failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Consequently, the Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and denied removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderDismissed PetitionPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmInadequate RemedyWrit of Review
References
8
Case No. SRO 0132158, SRO 0135138
Regular
Aug 10, 2007

CATHY CASAZZA vs. PETALUMA SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case clarifies that the two-year limit for temporary disability payments under Labor Code section 4656(c)(1) begins when payments are first made, not when the disability is owed. The Appeals Board held that for concurrent injuries to the same body part, the 104-week limit runs concurrently, not consecutively, from the first payment date. Furthermore, the Board rescinded the estoppel finding, ruling that an employer's statutory right to review medical treatment requests does not preclude them from asserting statutory payment limitations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetaluma School DistrictRESIGIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryCumulative TraumaTemporary Total DisabilityLabor Code Section 4656(c)(1)Compensable WeeksTwo-Year Limit
References
1
Case No. LAO 0854791, LAO 0854792
Regular
Sep 12, 2007

JOSE GONZALO VASQUEZ vs. CITY OF PASADENA, legally uninsured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award, finding that Labor Code section 4656(c)(1) limits temporary disability indemnity to 104 compensable weeks within a two-year period. The Board determined that since the applicant sustained two injuries to the same body part less than two weeks apart, and temporary disability began after the second injury, the two-year limitation runs concurrently for both, not consecutively. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to double the maximum temporary disability period.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Pasadenalegally uninsuredindustrial injuryright shoulderneckmaintenance public workertemporary disabilityLabor Code section 4656(c)(1)104 compensable weeks
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Wren

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court of Delaware County, where he was convicted of grand larceny in the third degree and committing a fraudulent practice after pleading guilty. The charges stemmed from fraudulent work activity reports and illicitly receiving workers' compensation benefits. The defendant's motion to withdraw his plea was denied without a hearing. On appeal, the court affirmed the County Court's decision, finding no error in denying the plea withdrawal and concluding that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel, as the plea resulted in a significant reduction in potential consecutive prison sentences.

Criminal AppealGuilty Plea WithdrawalGrand LarcenyFraudulent PracticeWorkers' Compensation FraudEffective Assistance of CounselAppellate ReviewPlea BargainConviction AffirmationJudicial Discretion
References
5
Case No. ADJ7333937, ADJ7114879
Regular
Jun 20, 2016

NELSON RAJ vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded two prior awards due to uncertainty regarding the applicant's temporary disability rate and periods. The original decisions failed to establish a clear, enforceable award for temporary disability indemnity, leaving the defendant liable for penalties without a determined benefit amount. The Board remanded the cases for further development of the record to issue a certain award consistent with *Foster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, which mandates concurrent, not consecutive, temporary disability awards. This ensures clarity on the defendant's exact liability and proper application of the 104-week benefit cap.

Petition for ReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityIndustrial InjuryAmended Findings and AwardWCJLabor Code section 4656(c)Foster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.104-week capWage LossDue Process
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03095 [217 AD3d 1346]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2023

People v. Cleveland

Defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of kidnapping and robbery. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reviewed several contentions, including the denial of substitution of counsel, the victim's in-court identification, and the legal sufficiency of the evidence. The court found no error in the County Court's rulings regarding counsel substitution and the victim's identification. It also concluded that the evidence, including DNA, fingerprint, and cell phone data, was legally sufficient to establish defendant's identity. While rejecting defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the court exercised its discretion to modify the sentence, directing all sentences to run concurrently, deeming the original consecutive sentences unduly harsh.

Kidnapping Second DegreeRobbery First DegreeRobbery Second DegreeAppellate Division Fourth DepartmentJury Verdict ReviewSubstitution of CounselIn-Court IdentificationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceDNA EvidenceFingerprint Evidence
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 1996

People v. Vasquez

This opinion addresses three consolidated appeals (*People v. Vasquez*, *People v. Dalton*, *People v. Adkinson*) concerning the admissibility of hearsay statements from 911 calls under the "present sense impression" and "excited utterance" exceptions. The Court of Appeals clarified the requirements for present sense impressions, emphasizing strict contemporaneity and independent corroboration, and found these criteria were not met in the offers of proof. Specifically, in Vasquez, the 911 call was excluded due to insufficient corroboration, while Dalton's and Adkinson's 911 statements were inadmissible for lacking contemporaneity. The Court affirmed the convictions in Vasquez and Dalton, and modified Adkinson's sentence regarding consecutive counts while otherwise affirming the conviction.

Hearsay RulePresent Sense ImpressionExcited Utterance911 CallsEvidentiary LawCriminal AppealsCorroboration RequirementContemporaneity PrincipleSentencing ModificationIdentification Testimony
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 25 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