Updated Daily
Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.
The court granted the motion concerning the continued occupancy rights of the tenants. This decision affects the ongoing residency of individuals currently living in the property. Furthermore, an associated appeal has been formally scheduled to be heard and argued before the Court of Appeals. This hearing is slated to occur during its session in May of 1954.
The plaintiff, a restaurant business operating an 'open shop' called Pre’ Catelan, sought an injunction against striking workers and their union. The strike, initiated without warning, involved picketing and alleged acts of violence, intimidation, and assault against employees and patrons, resulting in severe injuries to some workers. The defendants denied these charges, claiming peaceful picketing and attributing any disturbances to strangers, arguing the strike was due to the plaintiff's intention to destroy the union. The court, citing established principles regarding lawful picketing and the protection of workers' rights, found that the presented proof established aggravated assaults and threats. Consequently, the motion to continue the injunction pendente lite was granted.
The case concerns a proceeding under New York State Social Services Law § 392 to determine whether three children should remain in foster care. This court was directed by the Appellate Division, First Department, to provide findings after reversing previous orders to discharge the children to their parents. A new hearing in 1980 found the father unfit due to his demanding nature and inability to understand the children's needs. The mother, while in remission from prior issues, remained questionable in her ability to cope with the stress of the children's return, especially given the father's attitude and the return of an older son from prison. The court, balancing parental rights with the children's best interests, granted the agency's petition for continued foster care until March 1, 1981, imposing several conditions on the parents and the agency.
The Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York appealed an order from the Family Court, Queens County, which effectively dismissed a proceeding to continue the placement of a neglected child, Lindsay W. The Family Court had denied the Commissioner's request for a temporary extension of placement, citing the process server's error in service as an invalid excuse. The appellate court ruled that the Family Court abused its discretion by not granting the temporary extension, finding that the Commissioner had shown 'good cause' through good-faith attempts to notify the respondent mother and an excusable process server misunderstanding. The case was reversed and remitted to the Family Court to determine if the Commissioner's initial petition for extension, filed 11 days late, was also for 'good cause', which would then lead to a merits hearing on the extension of placement.
Claimant, who suffered an occupational injury to their right elbow, was deemed permanently partially disabled and awarded continuing workers' compensation benefits for reduced earnings after accepting a lower-paying position with the employer. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s decision. The employer appealed, arguing the injury was amenable to a schedule award rather than continuing benefits. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence from a medical expert that the claimant's condition involved continuing pain, potential worsening, and a future need for surgery, justifying the award of continuing benefits.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied an applicant's petition for removal of a prior order granting a continuance. The applicant, a hockey player alleging industrial injuries, claimed the continuance would cause significant prejudice and irreparable harm. However, the Board found that the applicant's attorney had filed a petition to withdraw, making the continuance necessary for the applicant to secure new counsel. Therefore, removal was deemed inappropriate and the petition was denied.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant's petition for reconsideration of an award for continued care at CareMeridian. The Administrative Law Judge found the defendant failed to conduct timely utilization review (UR) for the applicant's continued care, rendering the UR invalid. The Board agreed that the untimely UR allowed them to determine the medical treatment dispute and that continued care at CareMeridian was reasonable and necessary pending an appropriately arranged transfer. The Board affirmed the finding that the defendant failed to comply with statutory requirements for concurrent UR.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and denied their Petition for Removal. The defendant sought these actions after the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) continued the trial to await a Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (Panel QME) chiropractic report. The defendant argued prejudice and due process violations regarding a psychiatric evaluation, but the Board found no final order was issued and no substantial prejudice warranted removal. The Board affirmed the WCJ's interlocutory procedural order allowing discovery to continue and found no error in the continuation of the trial.
In this workers' compensation case, the applicant sustained admitted injuries and was treating with Dr. Sobol within the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN). When Dr. Sobol was terminated from the MPN, the defendant failed to properly follow continuity of care procedures as required by law. Specifically, the defendant did not resolve the dispute regarding the applicant's need for continued treatment with Dr. Sobol through the required dispute resolution process under Labor Code section 4062. Therefore, the Appeals Board rescinded the prior order and found that the applicant is entitled to continue treatment, including surgery, with Dr. Sobol.
This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration and removal of a WCJ's order deeming a prior stipulation a "continuing award" of temporary disability benefits. The defendant argued this prejudiced their right to present evidence of the applicant's employment and that the stipulation only set the rate and start date, not ongoing benefits. The Board denied both petitions, finding the defendant's subsequent payment of benefits beyond the stipulation date established it as a continuing award. Furthermore, the Board noted that under Labor Code section 4651.1, a rebuttable presumption of continuing disability exists until a petition to terminate liability is properly filed and overcome.
Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.