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
Jan 21, 2000

T. W. v. City of New York

This personal injury action arises from the sexual assault of an infant plaintiff by Anthony Monroe, an employee of the Police Athletic League (PAL) at a community center. Plaintiffs sued PAL for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for PAL, dismissing the complaint. However, the appellate court modified the decision, denying summary judgment on the claims of negligent hiring and retention, and negligent supervision of the children. The court found that factual issues existed regarding PAL's duty to investigate Monroe's criminal background, given its knowledge of a prior conviction, and its duty to supervise the children.

Negligent HiringNegligent RetentionNegligent SupervisionSexual AssaultPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentCriminal Background CheckEmployer LiabilityProximate CauseYouth Programs
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 1971

Commarato v. McLeod

The President of Local 400 sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from conducting a representation election, pending the final disposition of unfair labor practice charges. The Regional Director opposed this, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. The court reviewed the factual background, including a postponed election, subsequent unfair labor practice charges filed by unions against Art Steel Company, Inc., and the Board's decision to proceed with the election despite its own 'blocking charge rule'. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's discretionary order to proceed with the election, as it did not fall under the narrow exception of the Board acting in direct contravention of a specific statutory mandate. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Labor LawNational Labor Relations ActRepresentation ElectionPreliminary InjunctionJudicial ReviewNLRB JurisdictionUnfair Labor PracticesBlocking Charge RuleStatutory InterpretationFederal Courts
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hirsch v. Mastroianni

In a wrongful death action, the plaintiff, Hirsch's widow, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, that granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The lower court dismissed the complaint, ruling the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (subd 6), and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to dismiss this affirmative defense. The factual background involved co-employees Hirsch and Di Stefano, where Di Stefano shot Hirsch to death and then committed suicide. The appellate court reversed the order, finding that Di Stefano was not acting within the scope of his employment, thus making the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision inapplicable. Citing Maines v Cronomer Val. Fire Dept., the court clarified that the law does not bar tort actions against co-employees for acts outside the scope of employment or for intentional torts, and an insane person is liable for their torts.

Wrongful DeathWorkers' Compensation LawCo-employee LiabilityScope of EmploymentIntentional TortNegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewExclusive RemedyCPLR 3211
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carpenter v. Miller

Plaintiff, a gas pump attendant, was injured when a customer's car, operated by a co-worker, suddenly moved forward, striking him. The defendant customer had left her car running and unattended. Plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence. The defendant then initiated a third-party action against the co-worker and the service station owner. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing no factual issues existed and failure to state a cause of action. Special Term denied this motion, finding triable factual issues. This appeal affirmed Special Term's decision, holding that the complaint stated a cause of action in negligence and that factual disputes precluded summary judgment. The court also clarified that Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6) did not bar the action against the third-party owner for her own negligence, and Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1210 (a) was not applicable as the car was not "unattended" under the statute.

NegligencePersonal InjurySummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissWorkers' Compensation ImmunityThird-Party LiabilityVehicle and Traffic Law InterpretationProximate CauseDuty of CareAppellate Court Decision
References
12
Case No. ADJ11136346, ADJ10857795
Regular
Mar 08, 2019

IRMA NELSON vs. SAFEWAY/ALBERTSON'S HOLDINGS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for disqualification against a WCJ. The petition failed to provide specific, factual allegations under penalty of perjury to support claims of bias or an expressed opinion on the merits. Because the petition lacked the required factual basis under Labor Code section 5311 and relevant procedural rules, it was insufficient to warrant disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641unqualified opinionbiasenmityWCAB Rule 10452affidavit
References
6
Case No. ADJ6535347, ADJ6534384
Regular
Nov 02, 2015

CHRISTINE KNAPP vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The applicant sought to overturn findings of $53\%$ permanent disability and disputed the exclusion of vocational expert reports and a claim of $100\%$ disability. The Board found the petition contained numerous factual misrepresentations and violations of WCAB rules and professional conduct by the applicant's attorney. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which recommended denial due to the petition's legal defects and factual inaccuracies.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardOccupational Group NumberIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderMigraine HeadachesPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical Examiner
References
6
Case No. ADJ9242952 (MF) ADJ9242953
Regular
May 15, 2018

KERRINA CRAGUN vs. VARGO PHYSICAL THERAPY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision that affirmed a joint findings award. Applicant argued the defendant's answer was procedurally flawed and contained factual inaccuracies, warranting penalties for unreasonable delay of medical treatment. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding that while the defendant violated a rule by attaching exhibits, the violation did not invalidate their answer. The Board also found the factual inaccuracy in the answer was not an intentional misrepresentation, and that it lacked jurisdiction to order a physician to treat the applicant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationJoint Findings Award and OrderUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical Review (IMR)WCAB Rule 10842Secondary Treating PhysicianStipulation and AwardSanctions
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Buckman

The defendant moved for suppression of physical evidence, suppression of statements, and inspection of Grand Jury minutes. The court criticized the District Attorney's affidavit for lacking factual support. The motion for a suppression hearing concerning physical evidence was granted. However, the court denied the motion for a Huntley hearing due to the defendant's failure to provide sworn factual allegations. The request to inspect Grand Jury minutes was also denied, as the motion papers did not meet the statutory requirements for showing reasonable cause.

Criminal Procedure LawPenal LawSuppression HearingGrand Jury MinutesHuntley HearingPhysical EvidenceStatementsIndictmentDangerous DrugAffidavit
References
13
Case No. ADJ8438071
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

MONICA CONTRERAS vs. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, SACRAMENTO METRO; TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE IRVINE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior finding that Monica Contreras was an employee of Keller Williams Realty. The WCAB determined that the initial finding was erroneously based on the legal requirement for real estate agents to be associated with a broker, rather than a factual analysis of the control exercised by the defendant. The case is returned to the Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings and a new decision considering the factual relationship and the multi-factor test for employment status. The WCAB emphasized that the right to control the means and manner of work is the primary test.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMonica ContrerasKeller Williams RealtyTower National InsurancePetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorReal Estate Agent
References
16
Case No. ADJ2132852 (VNO 0380163)
Regular
Jan 23, 2009

TOMAS SANCHEZ vs. ST. GEORGE TRUCKING, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, Administered by AIG DOMESTIC CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior order imposing sanctions and costs on the applicant's attorney and hearing representative. The WCAB found that the original order was based on a critical factual error regarding the applicant's attendance at a prior trial, which was not properly corrected. Due to significant factual disputes and potential due process issues, the WCAB returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision on sanctions and costs by a different WCJ. The petition for removal was dismissed as reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderSanctionsCostsAdministrative Law JudgeHearing RepresentativeDue ProcessSubstantial Evidence
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,849 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