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
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 01635
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Empire State Transportation Workers' Compensation Trust v. Special Funds Conservation Committee

The Empire State Transportation Workers' Compensation Trust (the carrier) appealed an order denying its petition for judicial approval of a settlement nunc pro tunc. The claimant, Licinio Marrero, sustained injuries and settled a personal injury action for $100,000 without obtaining the consent of the Special Funds Conservation Committee (SFCC), which is required when SFCC liability is established prior to settlement. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the carrier's request, believing it lacked discretion to compel such consent. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, clarifying that the Supreme Court does have the discretion to issue a nunc pro tunc order compelling consent if certain conditions are met: the delay was not due to the petitioner's fault, the settlement amount was reasonable, and the SFCC was not prejudiced. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for it to exercise its discretion.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundNunc Pro Tunc OrderSettlement ApprovalReimbursementPersonal Injury ActionAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionCarrier's WaiverConsent Requirement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Daubney

The New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (OMRDD) sought to compel the trustee of a testamentary trust to use trust income for the daily care of beneficiary Paul Kemp, who resides in a State-operated facility. The trust, established by Kemp's mother, directed income expenditure for 'clothing, comforts and luxuries' but explicitly protected the principal from state claims for living expenses. The court ruled that while the trustee had no discretion over whether to expend income for these specified purposes, they had discretion in determining reasonable requirements. The court interpreted 'clothing, comforts and luxuries' as items not provided by the State for basic support. Consequently, the court found that the trustee's refusal to apply income for OMRDD's daily care charges was not an abuse of discretion, thereby denying OMRDD's request. The trustee was also ordered to file an accounting and explain the 'Paul Kemp luxury fund'.

Testamentary TrustTrust IncomeBeneficiary CareState ReimbursementWill InterpretationTrustee DiscretionMental Hygiene LawEstate LawFiduciary ResponsibilityInstitutionalized Individuals
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between Lucas & City of Buffalo

The case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment that confirmed two arbitration awards. The arbitration awards stemmed from violations of a collective bargaining agreement by the respondents, who ignored a binding past practice concerning the right of first refusal for acting-time positions. Specifically, the awards directed payment to Donald Mackowiak and Ronald French for lost wages and overtime. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, rejecting the respondents' contentions that the awards violated Civil Service Law §§ 61(2) and 64(2) or public policy. The court found that the awards did not compel the respondents to violate the Civil Service Law, noting their discretion in defining acting-time positions and the temporary nature of the appointments. It also concluded that the damages awarded were not speculative and that the limitation on employer discretion was permissible due to established past practice and the CBA, which constituted a conscious waiver of discretion.

Arbitration LawCollective BargainingCivil Service EmploymentPublic Policy ExceptionEmployment RightsSeniority RightsJudicial ReviewAppellate PracticeWage DisputeOut-of-Title Work
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1993

Claim of Garrison v. Craftech Industries, Inc.

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, as amended, which found his application for review untimely. The claimant argued that the Board abused its discretion by not exercising its continuing jurisdiction to consider the late application, despite not disputing the untimeliness. The court disagreed, citing a delay of over three months and the lack of an adequate explanation for the untimeliness. Given the Board’s broad discretion, the court affirmed its decision.

Workers' CompensationAppealUntimely ApplicationBoard DiscretionContinuing JurisdictionAffirmed DecisionProcedural IssueAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewWorkers’ Compensation Law Judge
References
0
Case No. MON 0212034
Regular
Mar 14, 2008

KRISTIAN VON RITZHOFF vs. OGDEN ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the applicant's petition, deeming it an improper reconsideration of a non-final order. The WCAB construed the applicant's request as a petition for removal, which it denied, upholding the WCJ's discretion to prohibit videotaping of proceedings. The decision emphasizes that a party's right to videotape hearings is within the WCJ's sound discretion and not a guaranteed right.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalRequest for Judicial NoticeVideotape ProceedingsWCJ DiscretionFinal OrderSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmVacating Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ7719607
Regular
Jul 27, 2012

STEVE WEDDLE vs. CITY OF PASADENA

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the judge's order to take the case off calendar. The applicant's attorney declared readiness for trial and completed discovery, then unsuccessfully sought to continue the trial to develop the record. The Board found the judge abused discretion by ordering further discovery without trial or evidence submission. The case is returned for trial, with the judge retaining discretion to order record development post-trial if necessary.

Petition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedDiscovery ClosureMedical Record DevelopmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorMcDuffie v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit AuthorityWCJ DiscretionTrial Readiness
References
1
Case No. ADJ9910760
Regular
Nov 20, 2018

RAFAEL GUZMAN RODRIGUEZ vs. WASTE MANAGEMENT COLLECTION AND RECYCLING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB affirmed its prior decision allowing the applicant to audio record a qualified medical evaluation with Dr. Dizay. The Board exercised its broad discretion to guide discovery, amending the initial administrative law judge's order which had prohibited recording. This decision aligns with the WCAB's authority to review and modify WCJ decisions based on the existing record and judicial discretion.

Petition for ReconsiderationAudio RecordingQualified Medical EvaluatorPanel QMEWCAB DiscretionLabor Code Section 5708Code of Civil ProcedureWCJ DecisionReconsideration ProceedingsJudicial Discretion
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00195 [179 AD3d 1262]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2020

Matter of Seales v. Eastern Concrete Cutting Corp.

Kevan Seales filed a workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease. The claim was established, and a lump-sum award of $189,790.16 was stipulated. Claimant's counsel, Geoffrey Schotter, applied for a fee of $28,500, which was reduced to $20,000 by the Workers' Compensation Board. Schotter appealed this reduction. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board has broad discretion in approving counsel fees and did not abuse its discretion by reducing the fee, as it considered all appropriate factors.

Workers' CompensationCounsel FeesOccupational DiseaseSchedule Loss of UseLump-Sum AwardBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewAttorney FeesRepetitive Strain InjuryJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. ADJ9211017
Regular
Mar 28, 2017

JOSE MENDOZA vs. KINGSLEY COMPANIES; SAMSUNG FIRE AND MARINE c/o BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the denial of a credit for benefits paid. The WCAB found that the administrative law judge's decision not to grant the credit was within their discretion and not an abuse of discretion, considering the lack of wrongdoing by the applicant. The applicant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as skeletal and unsupported by specific references to the record and legal principles, as required by statute and board rules. Therefore, the WCAB upheld the original denial of the credit and dismissed the applicant's petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionDismissing PetitionLabor Code section 4909CreditDiscretionary AuthorityEquitable PrinciplesSkeletal PetitionAppeals Board Rules
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,024 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