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

Vay v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Plaintiff Emily R. Vay sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff alleged disability due to anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, pervasive development disorder, Asperger's syndrome, and learning disability since January 16, 2014. Her application was initially denied, and after a hearing before Administrative Law Judge William M. Manico, an unfavorable decision was issued on January 21, 2016, which became the Commissioner's final decision after the Appeals Council denied review on May 26, 2017. Before the District Court, both parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff argued that the ALJ failed to develop the record regarding recent treatment, improperly assessed her credibility, and mischaracterized her impairments, leading to an unsupported Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) finding. The Court, presided over by Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford, granted the Commissioner's motion and denied Plaintiff's motion, finding that the Commissioner's determination was supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error. The Court concluded that the ALJ adequately developed the record, made a reasonable credibility assessment based on conflicting evidence, and properly assessed Plaintiff's impairments and RFC.

Supplemental Security IncomeSocial Security ActDisability BenefitsALJ Decision ReviewResidual Functional CapacityCredibility AssessmentRecord DevelopmentAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderAnxiety DisorderAutism Spectrum Disorder
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2012

RCN Telecom Services of New York, LP v. Frankel

This case involves petitioners challenging a ruling that their backup power equipment is assessable as real property and contesting tax assessments on that equipment. The petitioners argued that the equipment should not be considered real property under Real Property Tax Law § 102 (12) (f) because it falls under an exception for movable machinery or equipment. They also contended that the equipment should be exempt as telecommunications equipment and that assessments were void due to lack of timely notice. The court modified the lower court's decision, declaring that the backup power equipment is assessable as real property and that the assessments are not nullities for lack of notice.

real propertytax assessmentbackup power equipmentpower generating apparatusmovable machinerytelecommunications equipmentRPTLstatutory interpretationsummary judgmentNew York
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Held v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

Petitioners, consisting of group self-insured trusts (GSITs), initiated a proceeding to challenge assessments levied by the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board under Workers’ Compensation Law § 50 (5) (former [f]). They argued that the statute was inapplicable to GSITs and that the Board failed to meet statutory prerequisites for the assessments. The Supreme Court annulled the assessments on the grounds that the Board failed to satisfy prerequisites, although it deemed the statute applicable to GSITs. Petitioners appealed the Supreme Court’s finding that the statute was applicable. The appellate court dismissed the appeals, determining that petitioners were not aggrieved by the judgment as they had received the relief sought—the annulment of the assessments. The court also clarified that collateral estoppel would not apply to the interpretation of the statute, which is a pure question of law, and that the discovery issue was academic.

Group Self-Insured TrustsWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationAssessmentsAnnulmentAppeal DismissalAggrieved PartyCollateral EstoppelCPLR Article 78Declaratory Judgment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2005

Claim of Horton v. Salt

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that reduced penalties against the employer and its carrier for late benefit payments. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially assessed a penalty of 20% of the late payments plus six $300 assessments. The Board agreed on late payments but reduced the penalty to only one $300 assessment, interpreting Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (1) (e) as allowing a single $300 assessment per "instance" of application. The Court found the Board's interpretation not irrational but noted its inconsistency with prior Board decisions on similar facts without providing an explanation. Consequently, the Court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationLate Payment PenaltiesStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAgency PrecedentArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewRemandWorkers' Compensation BoardEmployer Obligations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coger v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Plaintiff Ubrona Coger sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI). The District Court, presided over by Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford, reviewed the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) five-step sequential evaluation process. The ALJ had determined Coger was not disabled, a decision upheld by the Appeals Council. The Plaintiff argued that the ALJ erred in weighing the medical opinion of a treating nurse practitioner and failed to properly assess her credibility regarding subjective complaints. The Court found no error in the ALJ's assessment of medical opinions or credibility determination, concluding that the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted and Plaintiff's motion was denied, affirming the original decision.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActALJ reviewMedical opinionCredibility assessmentFunctional limitationsNurse practitioner opinionSubstantial evidenceAdministrative lawFederal court review
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matejka v. Barnhart

Plaintiff, Ms. Matejka, alleging disability since March 31, 2000, applied for Disability Insurance Benefits, which was denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The plaintiff sought review in District Court, arguing the ALJ's decision lacked sufficient inquiry into past relevant work, a reasoned finding on credibility, a proper residual functional capacity assessment, and a correct determination of the severity of her depression. The District Court found the ALJ's conclusions not supported by substantial evidence due to these deficiencies, particularly regarding the exertional requirements of past work, the evaluation of the plaintiff's credibility, the lack of a function-by-function RFC analysis, and the failure to adequately assess the severity of her depression, especially in light of uncontradicted medical opinions. Consequently, the Court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for a new hearing consistent with its findings.

Disability Insurance BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityCredibility AssessmentMedical EvidencePsychological AssessmentSpinal StenosisChronic Back PainDepressionRemand
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cedeno v. Pacoa

The Workers' Compensation Board assessed a $500 monetary penalty against claimant's counsel for an unsubstantiated request to change the hearing venue from Queens/Nassau to White Plains, Westchester County. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially assessed $250. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding ample support for the assessment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii). The court ruled that the Board had authority to increase the penalty and overlooked a procedural defect regarding who filed the appeal, treating it as filed by counsel.

Workers' CompensationVenue ChangeCounsel FeesMonetary PenaltyAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural MotionUnpreserved ArgumentSubstantial EvidenceJudicial Authority
References
5
Case No. ADJ8534803 (MF) ADJ8535153
Regular
Nov 01, 2013

Randy Graves vs. Roy's Concrete & Masonry, Inc., Farmers Insurance

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a judge's finding that the applicant was not an employee of Roy's Concrete & Masonry, Inc. This decision was based on the judge's determination of the applicant's lack of credibility, citing inconsistencies in his testimony regarding pay and treatment history. The Board found that the judge's credibility assessment was entitled to great weight and that a formal Borello analysis was not required due to the absence of credible evidence of an employment relationship. Consequently, the applicant's claim for workers' compensation benefits was denied.

WCABReconsiderationEmployment relationshipCredibilitySubstantial evidenceBorello analysisTractor operatorRoy's Concrete & MasonryFarmers InsuranceWCJ
References
3
Case No. ADJ9002100
Regular
Feb 05, 2015

KENA PIERRE vs. KAISER PERMANENT, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Kaiser Permanente's petition for reconsideration of an earlier decision. The Board adopted the findings of the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ), giving significant weight to the judge's credibility determination of the applicant. The WCJ found the applicant's testimony credible, despite minor inconsistencies, and supported by medical opinions from treating and QME physicians. The defendant's arguments regarding the substantiality of the evidence were rejected, and the judge's credibility assessments of defense witnesses were also unfavorable.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationCredibility DeterminationWCJSubstantial EvidencePsychiatric InjurySexual HarassmentLicensed Vocational NurseWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQME
References
0
Case No. ADJ8566421 ADJ8581967
Regular
May 06, 2013

MARIBEL JIMENEZ vs. VIA VENETO OF CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Maribel Jimenez's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the Workers' Compensation Judge's finding that she was not credible and suffered no industrial injury. The Judge found Jimenez's testimony regarding two slip-and-fall incidents lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and her failure to report or seek treatment for nearly two years. Furthermore, the Board agreed with the Judge's assessment of Jimenez's credibility, giving it great weight as per *Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.* The Board adopted and incorporated the Judge's report, concluding no further development of the record was warranted.

WCABPetition for Reconsiderationcredibilityindustrial injuryAOE/COEdeferred psychological injurydemeanorslip and fallno medical treatmentno lost time
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 2,162 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