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

Matter of Turi v. Five L. Enterprises, Inc.

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant's spouse died in a 1993 work-related accident, leading to an award of death benefits. The employer's workers’ compensation carrier was directed to deposit a substantial sum into the Aggregate Trust Fund (ATF) but failed to do so. The claimant sought to impose a 20% penalty on the carrier for this untimely payment, arguing it violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f). The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the claimant lacked standing to request such a penalty. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that issues regarding late deposits into the ATF are between the ATF and the carrier, not the claimant, and are governed by separate regulations (12 NYCRR 393.2).

Aggregate Trust FundDeath BenefitsPenalty ImpositionTimely DepositStandingWorkers' Compensation CarrierWorkers' Compensation BoardLate PaymentActuarial ComputationJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2000

Bordeau v. Village of Deposit

Plaintiffs Brian K. Bordeau, Francis Laundry Jr., and Jeffrey S. Laundry initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as New York State common law claims, against the Village of Deposit, its Police Chief Jon Bowie, and Village Justice Peter McDade. The lawsuit arose from an incident in May 1997 involving alleged unlawful arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several causes of action. The court denied summary judgment for claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution against Chief Bowie, and a state law assault and battery claim against Justice McDade. However, it granted summary judgment dismissing claims against the Village related to an alleged pattern of unconstitutional conduct and claims against Justice McDade based on judicial immunity. Additionally, all claims against the New York State Troopers, the Village Police Department, and punitive damages against the Village were dismissed. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining federal and state law claims.

Civil RightsSection 1983False ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionMunicipal LiabilityJudicial ImmunityExcessive ForceSummary JudgmentConstitutional Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nadler v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the disclosure of a redacted joint venture agreement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed American Savings Bank (ASB), withheld information related to ASB's subsidiary, Amore Holdings, Inc., citing FOIA Exemption Four for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The court, applying the National Parks test, determined that public disclosure would significantly impair the FDIC’s ability to maximize profits from its receivership assets and cause substantial competitive harm to Amore. Consequently, the court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.

FOIAExemption FourCommercial InformationConfidentialityFDIC ReceivershipSummary JudgmentGovernment AgencyReal Estate DevelopmentFreedom of Information Act
References
12
Case No. ADJ7843125
Regular
Nov 14, 2014

LISA DARBY vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES, SEDGWICK CMS

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, which sought to reverse a WCJ's order denying disqualification of a QME. The defendant argued the QME failed to timely submit a supplemental report after reviewing surveillance video, a delay stemming from a verbal request during a deposition, not a formal written one. The Board found Administrative Director Rule 38.1(i) inapplicable as it requires a written request. Furthermore, the Board noted a subsequent deposition could resolve the issue or allow the defendant to renew their motion.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorSupplemental ReportTimelinessDepositionSurveillance VideoAdministrative Director Rule 38.1(i)Verbal RequestMoot IssueRenew Motion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2002

In re the Claim of Kearse

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which upheld its prior ruling that the claimant's request for a hearing was untimely. The claimant had been disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits due to misconduct and charged with an overpayment, but failed to request a review hearing for several months, mistakenly believing her workers' compensation case was related. The Board, upon reconsideration, adhered to its finding that the request was untimely. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that a claimant typically has 30 days to request a hearing unless there is a valid excuse. The court also declined to consider the claimant's belated assertions of post-traumatic stress disorder as a justification for the delay.

Unemployment BenefitsUntimely RequestMisconduct DischargeOverpaymentWorkers' CompensationPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderAppellate ReviewHearing TimelinessAdministrative DecisionNew York Appellate Division
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Domanico v. Woodmere Fire District

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 4, 2005, which denied an employer's request for reimbursement of wages paid to a claimant during a period of disability. The court examined whether a June 24, 2004 notice, issued by the self-insured employer, Woodmere Fire District, containing language about reimbursement, was sufficient as a request under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a). The court found the notice to be sufficient in form. However, a critical issue remained regarding the timeliness of this request; specifically, whether it was filed prior to the compensation award made at the January 7, 2005 hearing. Due to this unresolved issue, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to determine the timeliness of the reimbursement request.

Workers' Compensation ReimbursementEmployer Wage ReimbursementDisability WagesTimeliness of Reimbursement RequestWorkers' Compensation LawBoard Decision AppealJudicial ReversalRemittal for Further ProceedingsNew York Workers' CompensationStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bland v. Gellman

A claimant had two workers' compensation claims, one managed by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases and the other by Travelers Insurance Company, with liability equally apportioned. The claimant's treating physician requested a variance for aquatic therapy, which both carriers denied. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge approved the treatment, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, asserting that the variance request form (MG-2) was not properly served on the Board and that the review request was untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the MG-2 form was timely filed with the Board, referencing both claim numbers, and that the request for review of the denial was also timely. The court concluded that the Board's determination lacked substantial evidence and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Variance RequestAquatic TherapyClaim DenialMG-2 FormTimely FilingAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesTravelers Insurance CompanySubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. ADJ9755370
Regular
Aug 10, 2017

BERNARDINO GARDEA vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case concerns the City of Pasadena's request for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding the applicant's occupational group number. The WCJ initially recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition as untimely. However, the defendant has now requested leave to file a supplemental petition to address issues raised in the WCJ's report. The WCAB has granted the defendant's request to file this supplemental petition. The defendant is ordered to file the supplemental petition within 20 days, either by mail or via EAMS, to avoid rejection.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental PetitionReconsiderationOccupational Group NumberAdministrative Law JudgePetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10848Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSCity of Pasadena
References
0
Case No. ADJ3970584 (LAO 0836632)
Regular
Nov 04, 2011

RUSSELL NELSON vs. RENAISSANCE HOLLYWOOD HOTEL

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, reversing an earlier WCJ order that denied a second deposition of the applicant. This decision allows the defendant to depose the applicant and the appointed physician, Dr. Sadoff, regarding subsequent employment and industrial injury. The Board found good cause for the second deposition, as new information may be relevant to permanent disability and apportionment. The case was taken off calendar pending these depositions, but the request for reassignment of the WCJ was denied.

Petition for RemovalArmin M. SadoffM.D.Regular PhysicianSubsequent EmploymentSubsequent Industrial InjurySecond DepositionCompelling AttendanceCross-examinationPermanent Disability
References
4
Case No. ADJ6627057
Regular
Oct 21, 2011

EDITH TUPAS vs. HEALTHCARE PARTNERS, LLC, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Edith Tupas's petition for removal seeking to disqualify the judge, have a judge attend her deposition, and prevent dismissal of her case. The Board found no sufficient grounds to disqualify the judge and noted the applicant's prior petition for a judge at her deposition was denied. Additionally, the Board found the removal request premature and lacked a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The applicant was reminded that failure to appear at her deposition could lead to a suspension of benefits.

Petition for RemovalWCJ DisqualificationDeposition SupervisionFailure to ProceedDiscovery OrderEx Parte CommunicationBias and PrejudiceSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmExtraordinary Remedy
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 3,447 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