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

Tesillo v. Emergency Physician Associates, Inc.

Manuel Tesillo sued Emergency Physician Associates, Inc. (EPA) for medical malpractice, alleging vicarious liability for the negligence of Dr. William C. Shepherd, an emergency physician at Schuyler Hospital. EPA moved for summary judgment, arguing Dr. Shepherd was an independent contractor. The court found material issues of fact regarding the extent of EPA's control over Dr. Shepherd and its managerial obligations to the Emergency Department, which could establish an employer-employee relationship despite contractual terms. Consequently, the court denied EPA's motion for summary judgment, indicating that the determination of Dr. Shepherd's employment status requires further discovery and possibly a trial.

Medical MalpracticeVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorAgency by EstoppelSummary JudgmentPhysician NegligenceEmergency DepartmentControl TestMaterial Issues of Fact
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gooshaw v. Wing

A disabled adult, relying on SSI and workers' compensation, relocated his mobile home to an undeveloped plot in Cortland County after eviction, lacking essential utilities. Faced with building code violations, he sought emergency assistance from the Cortland County Department of Social Services (DSS) for property improvements. DSS denied his application, recommending alternative housing, a decision affirmed by the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, which reasoned that his needs were foreseeable and not a sudden catastrophe. The court upheld this denial, confirming that the requested capital improvements fell outside the scope of emergency assistance for adults (EAA), which is intended for unforeseen events. It was concluded that the application was correctly assessed under emergency safety net assistance, which permits considering cost-effective alternatives, and the determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Emergency AssistanceDisabled AdultSupplemental Security IncomeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMobile HomeBuilding Code ViolationsCapital ImprovementsSocial Services LawForeseeabilityCatastrophic Emergency
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1993

Kelly v. Bane

This case involves an appeal concerning an amendment to the 'Emergency Home Relief' (EHR) program regulation, 18 NYCRR 370.3 (b) (2), which set an income eligibility cap at 125% of the Federal poverty guidelines. Plaintiffs, low-income families and individuals facing eviction, challenged the amendment's validity and the denial of their applications. While the Supreme Court declared the amendment invalid, the Appellate Division modified this, ruling that the amendment itself was not irrational. However, the Appellate Division found the New York State Department of Social Services' (DSS) interpretation and application of the income test—using prospective income rather than income at the time of the emergency—to be arbitrary and capricious. The court affirmed the remand of the cases, directing re-evaluation of eligibility based on a reasonable computation of income during the emergency period.

Emergency Home ReliefAdministrative LawRegulatory InterpretationPoverty GuidelinesEviction PreventionHomelessnessIncome EligibilityArbitrary and CapriciousDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Bridget Y.

The dissenting opinion argues that the New York Family Court improperly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction over the subject children, Colleen Y. and Kelly Y. While agreeing that New Mexico was the children's home state and a custody proceeding was already pending there, the dissent contends that the strict criteria for an emergency, requiring 'imminent and substantial danger,' were not met. The dissent points out that the New Mexico court had already assumed jurisdiction, transferred custody to an Ohio family, and issued a protective order against the parents, thereby eliminating any immediate risk of abuse or parental control. The opinion concludes that the Family Court's order creates jurisdictional conflict rather than eliminating it, advocating for the reversal of the orders and dismissal of the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction over the children under 18.

Child CustodyUCCJEAEmergency JurisdictionNeglect ProceedingsInterstate JurisdictionNew Mexico LawNew York Family CourtHome State RuleImminent HarmParental Rights
References
14
Case No. ADJ8191986; ADJ8717495
Regular
Nov 06, 2014

MICHAEL BEN GRAVES vs. MV TRANSPORTATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied applicant Michael Ben Graves's emergency motion for a stay of proceedings. The WCAB found that no proceedings were currently pending before it, making the motion moot regarding appeals board actions. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate a connection between his pending Court of Appeal writ of review and the undecided vexatious litigant issue at the trial level, nor did he show irreparable harm. Consequently, the motion to stay trial-level proceedings was also denied.

Vexatious litigantEmergency motion for stayWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for writ of reviewCourt of AppealPresiding workers' compensation administrative law judgeWCAB Rule 10782Pro se applicantSubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harm
References
0
Case No. MISC. NO. 264
En Banc
Oct 27, 2020

Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vs. State of California

The Appeals Board rescinds its suspension of WCAB Rules 10755, 10756, and 10888, which had previously suspended the dismissal of cases for failure to appear due to the COVID-19 emergency.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCOVID-19State of EmergencyEn BancWCAB RulesSuspensionRescindsDismissalFailure to AppearApplication
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Opn. No.

This legal opinion addresses whether cost-of-living adjustments paid by the New York City Transit Authority (TA) to its employees, represented by the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), are subject to suspension under the wage freeze provisions of the Financial Emergency Act for the City of New York. The Act, enacted in 1975 to address the city's fiscal crisis, includes the TA as a 'covered organization' whose salary and wage increases are suspended. The opinion concludes that cost-of-living adjustments constitute 'salary or wages' based on common interpretation and legal precedents. Therefore, the opinion holds that such payments by the TA would violate the Act's wage freeze mandate, aligning with the legislative intent to prevent the city's financial collapse.

Wage freezeCost-of-living adjustmentsFinancial Emergency ActNew York City fiscal crisisPublic employeesCollective bargainingStatutory interpretationEmergency powersGovernmental entitiesEconomic stabilization
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Neary v. New York State Division of Budget

Five employees of the Division of Military and Naval Affairs State Emergency Management Office (DMNA) sought to annul a determination by the Director of the New York State Division of the Budget (DOB). The petitioners worked emergency overtime following the September 11, 2001 attack. DOB retroactively applied a 12% salary limitation from Civil Service Law § 134 (5) to their emergency overtime, which was earned under Civil Service Law § 134 (6). The court determined that DOB lacked statutory authority to impose such a cap on extreme emergency overtime, as section 134 (6) does not contain this limitation. Consequently, the court granted the petition, annulling DOB's determination and ordering the processing of overtime pay requests without the applied 12% limitation.

overtime payemergency servicesCivil Service Lawstatutory interpretationadministrative discretionbudgetary limitationsWorld Trade Center attackNew York State lawgovernment employeesdisaster response
References
4
Case No. 5753-13
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2018

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Any-Time Home Care, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) initiated a main action against former members of the insolvent Healthcare Industry Trust of New York (HITNY) to recover a significant deficit. These defendants subsequently commenced a third-party action against an auditor, an actuary, and individuals associated with the trust administrator for indemnity and contribution. The third-party defendants sought to coordinate this new action with existing coordinated cases related to the collapse of other CRM-administered trusts and to stay it pending judicial approval of their settlements with the WCB. The Supreme Court, Albany County, concluded that the third-party action is a 'related matter' subject to a prior coordination order. Consequently, the court ordered the third-party action to be coordinated and stayed, pending the determination of an Article 77 Proceeding concerning the Board's settlements.

Coordination of ActionsStay of ProceedingsThird-Party LitigationGroup Self-Insured Trusts (GSITs)Trust InsolvencyWorkers' Compensation Law (WCL)Joint and Several LiabilitySettlement AgreementsArticle 77 ProceedingLitigation Coordinating Panel
References
4
Case No. ADJ9091836
Regular
May 09, 2018

CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS (Deceased), AMY DOUGLAS (Surviving Spouse Guardian Ad Litem) vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND (Claims Administrator)

This case involves a dispute over workers' compensation death benefits for the dependents of a deceased CalFIRE engineer/paramedic. The appeals board is reconsidering a prior decision that awarded benefits but ordered coordination with CalPERS special death benefits. The central issue is whether workers' compensation death benefits should be awarded to the decedent's children, considering they already receive CalPERS benefits, and how to properly coordinate these two types of benefits. The Board rescinded the prior decision and returned the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for proper joinder of CalPERS and a careful consideration of coordination rules.

WCABCalFIRESCIFCalPERSDeath BenefitsSpecial Death BenefitAntrimThompsonCoordination of BenefitsGuardian Ad Litem
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 285 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