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

People v. Fratt

The defendant, charged with second-degree murder, provided notice of intent to present psychiatric evidence from Dr. Martha Rosen, a defense-retained psychologist, who would testify about dependent personality disorder and 'battered woman's syndrome.' The prosecution subsequently moved for an order compelling Dr. Rosen to prepare a report outlining her findings and evaluations, and for the discovery of her notes. The court granted the prosecution's motion, ruling that the defendant waived psychologist-patient privilege by placing her mental state at issue. The court further held that CPL 250.10, read in conjunction with CPLR 3101(d), requires the defense to provide a detailed notice of psychiatric evidence, including expert qualifications, examination details, relied-upon materials, diagnostic opinions, and the bases for those opinions. The court denied the motion for a pretrial hearing as premature.

Psychiatric EvidenceDiscoveryExpert TestimonyPsychologist-Patient PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeCriminal Procedure LawCivil Practice Law and RulesMental StateBattered Woman's SyndromeForensic Evaluation
References
14
Case No. ADJ10486755
Regular
Apr 22, 2018

RUBEN AQUINO vs. MISSION PAVING, CLARENDON INSURANCE F/K/A SUSSEX INSURANCE, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, REDWOOD FIRE \& CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY C/O BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Ruben Aquino's Petition for Reconsideration as premature because his allegations of fraud and new evidence lacked supporting testimony or admitted evidence. The Board found that the original service of the Compromise and Release order was defective, making Aquino's petition timely for the purpose of review. However, since no evidence was presented regarding his claims, the Board returned the matter to the trial level. The WCJ is instructed to schedule a hearing for parties to present evidence, after which either party may file a new petition for reconsideration.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseFraudNew EvidenceTimelinessDefective ServiceDue ProcessFair HearingLabor Code § 5803
References
16
Case No. ADJ10620323
Regular
May 14, 2019

EDWARD ZOZOSKY vs. INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR CO.; XL INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a finding that Edward Zozosky sustained a right shoulder injury arising out of and in the course of employment, despite conflicting evidence regarding a forceful braking event. The Board found that medical reports from Dr. Kupfer and Dr. Zardouz constituted substantial evidence supporting the injury AOE/COE. While the defendant presented testimony and evidence questioning the mechanics of the alleged forceful stop, the Board gave deference to the administrative law judge's credibility determination of the applicant. However, one Commissioner dissented, arguing that the applicant failed to present substantial evidence of an industrial injury, emphasizing the lack of corroborating medical history and applicant's credibility issues.

AOE/COEhard braking eventOnGuard systemABS brakesrotator cuff capsule sprainindustrial aggravationQMEmedical opinioncredibility determinationsubstantial evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Druziak v. Town of Amsterdam

Hartford Insurance Company appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board had denied Hartford's applications for rehearing and reconsideration, based on purportedly newly discovered evidence. The case originated from a volunteer fireman's knee injury, where Hartford was identified as the insurance carrier and subsequently penalized for failing to file necessary forms. Hartford argued it was not the proper carrier but failed to present this evidence timely. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding that the 'newly discovered evidence' could have been presented earlier and Hartford's default was due to its own failure to investigate.

Workers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewRehearing ApplicationReconsideration RequestNewly Discovered EvidenceInsurance Carrier LiabilityProcedural DefaultVolunteer Fireman InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionsDiscretionary Review
References
1
Case No. ADJ10295228
Regular
Oct 05, 2017

JEANETTA McCURINE vs. ON TIME STAFFING, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a defendant seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board finding that the applicant's average weekly earnings were $465.40. The defendant argued this finding lacked substantial evidence and that alternative Labor Code sections should apply for calculating average weekly earnings. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the administrative law judge properly applied Labor Code section 4453(c)(1) based on the evidence presented and the applicant's employment history. The defendant failed to present evidence demonstrating that other sections of 4453(c) were more appropriate or that the applicant's earnings were irregular.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAverage Weekly EarningsIndustrial InjuryLumbar SpineCustomer Service RepresentativeLabor Code § 4453(c)Earning CapacitySubstantial Evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Lloyd

Defendant Stephanie Lloyd was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery, robbery, and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence after her involvement in planning an armed robbery of the Wyandanch Post Office where she worked. Lloyd intended to be present during the robbery to fraudulently claim worker's compensation benefits. Although the robbery occurred on a different date than planned, and Lloyd was not present, she was found guilty. She subsequently filed motions for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence and errors in jury instructions, including the application of Pinkerton liability. The Court denied both motions, affirming the jury's verdict based on the evidence presented and proper legal standards.

Criminal LawConspiracy to Commit RobberyArmed RobberyBrandishing a FirearmJudgment of Acquittal MotionNew Trial MotionFederal Rules of Criminal ProcedureSufficiency of Evidence ReviewWitness Credibility AssessmentPinkerton Doctrine
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kwasnik v. Willo Packing Co.

This case concerns an appeal by a petitioner from an order that vacated a prior judgment which confirmed an arbitrator's award. The petitioner was discharged for alleged theft, but an arbitrator ordered his reinstatement. The respondent sought to overturn this, initially alleging fraud and later presenting 'newly discovered evidence' after the petitioner gave conflicting testimony in a co-worker's trial. Special Term granted the respondent's motion, vacating the prior judgment. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that newly discovered evidence is not a valid ground for vacating an arbitrator's award under CPLR 7511, and that the evidence presented was either previously available or merely impeaching. The original judgment confirming the arbitrator's award was thus reinstated.

Arbitration AwardVacaturReinstatementCollective BargainingFraud AllegationsNewly Discovered EvidenceCPLR 7511Appellate ReviewWitness CredibilityDischarge for Misconduct
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Panagiotatos v. Eastman Kodak Co.

This is an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed December 1, 1994, which ruled that the claimant had no further causally related disability subsequent to October 23, 1989. The claimant was injured in 1986 and received benefits until 1989, but sought additional compensation for persistent back pain. The Board dismissed the claim, finding insufficient credible evidence of causality. Conflicting medical testimonies from physicians Richard Dellaporta, Sewall Miller, and Harry Cole were presented. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, stating that resolving conflicts in medical testimony is within the Board's province and that substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion. The claimant's contention regarding the presumption of causal relationship under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (5) was also rejected, as countervailing substantial evidence was presented.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related DisabilityMedical TestimonyConflicting EvidenceAppellate ReviewPresumption of CausalityWorkers' Compensation Law § 21(5)Back Pain InjuryBoard Decision AffirmationExpert Witnesses
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fedor-Leo v. Broome County Sheriff's Department

Claimant, a correction officer, sought workers’ compensation benefits for a right shoulder injury allegedly sustained in an unwitnessed accident. She testified to slipping on stairs and reported the incident, receiving medical treatment. The employer disputed the claim, presenting evidence that claimant had been disciplined shortly before and that her ‘tip alarm’ was not triggered. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially applied the Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 presumption of compensability. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the employer had presented substantial evidence to rebut the presumption, and disallowed the claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, clarifying that the § 21 presumption establishes an accident arose out of employment but not that an accident occurred, which remains a factual question. Substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that no accident occurred.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryUnwitnessed AccidentPresumption of CompensabilitySufficiency of EvidenceFactual QuestionShoulder InjuryCorrection OfficerBoard DeterminationSubstantial Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Longo v. Graphic Packaging Corp.

The claimant, a maintenance mechanic, was employed from 1961 to 2001, last by Graphic Packaging Corporation, a subsidiary of Coors Brewing Company. In 2007, he was diagnosed with interstitial lung disease due to workplace asbestos exposure, establishing March 15, 2007, as the date of disablement for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined that Zurich American Insurance Company, the carrier for Coors, was liable, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. Zurich and Graphic Packaging appealed, contending they were denied the right to present proof and that there was a lack of substantial evidence regarding Coors' employer status and Zurich's liability. The court found that Zurich failed to present evidence despite notice and opportunities, and the claimant's uncontroverted testimony provided substantial evidence supporting the Board's determination.

Asbestos exposureInterstitial lung diseaseOccupational diseaseWorkers' compensation benefitsEmployer liabilityInsurance carrier liabilitySubstantial evidenceUncontroverted testimonyWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate review
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 11,285 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