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. 2018 NY Slip Op 05983
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2018

Matter of Taylor v. Little Angels Head Start

Claimant, Laverne Taylor, sought workers' compensation benefits for a bilateral knee condition, alleging it was work-related due to changes in her job duties at Little Angels Head Start. She filed her claim over a year after leaving employment, and the employer controverted it due to lack of timely notice under Workers' Compensation Law § 18. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed the decision, denying the claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer lacked actual knowledge of a work-related injury and was prejudiced by the delay, as Taylor did not inform them of the work-related nature of her condition until much later.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsTimely NoticeWorkers' Compensation Law § 18Causally-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionEmployer KnowledgePrejudiceBilateral Knee ConditionMedical Leave
References
3
Case No. CV 93-1443 ADS
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2000

LI HEAD START CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERV. v. Kearse

This case addresses cross-motions for reconsideration regarding a prior court order compelling defendants to return $497,736 to L.I. Head Start. The defendants' motion, citing concerns about the financial stability of the Community Action Agencies Insurance Group (CAAIG) Fund if the transfer occurred, was denied, as the court found their evidence outdated and irrelevant to the appropriate assessment date of withdrawal in 1992. Conversely, the plaintiffs' motion for prejudgment interest on the owed sum was granted, with the court ordering the defendants to pay the principal amount plus interest accrued from September 1, 1992. Additionally, the court awarded attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs, finding evidence of bad faith on the part of the defendants and noting the deterrent effect such an award would have on other fund trustees. However, the plaintiffs' request for computer legal research costs was denied as not being a separately taxable expense.

ERISAPension PlanHealth Benefit FundMotion for ReconsiderationPrejudgment InterestAttorneys' FeesFund DepletionFinancial StabilityBad FaithFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
36
Case No. ADJ11339054, ADJ10362180
Regular
Mar 20, 2023

DONALD TERRY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) award finding industrial injury to the applicant's head, brain, heart, and stroke, in addition to previously stipulated knee injuries. This decision was based on the fact that the original stipulation expressly left the head, brain, heart, and stroke claims open for further litigation. Medical evidence supported these additional injuries as a compensable consequence of the initial knee injury.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardadministrative law judgeindustrial injurycumulative traumapermanent disabilityapportionmentfurther medical treatmentstipulated award
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moglia v. Sullivan County Head Start, Inc.

This memorandum decision addresses the defendants' motion for summary judgment concerning whether Sullivan County Head Start, Inc. acted "under color of law" in discharging the plaintiff, a key issue for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court referenced prior decisions, specifically Morse v. North Coast Opportunities, Inc. and Nail v. Community Action Agency of Calhoun County, which established that despite extensive federal funding and regulation, Head Start personnel decisions are not made under color of law. This is because federal and state officials lack sufficient control over personnel actions, and Head Start programs do not perform traditionally exclusive governmental functions. Consequently, the court found that Sullivan County Head Start is not a governmental entity for constitutional litigation purposes, granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiff's pendant State law claims without prejudice.

Summary JudgmentColor of Law42 U.S.C. § 1983Head Start ProgramGovernmental EntityPersonnel DecisionsState ActionFederal FundingDismissal Without PrejudiceBivens Claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L.I. Head Start Child Development Services, Inc. v. Kearse

L.I. Head Start Child Development Services, Inc. and two class representatives filed an action against the individual trustees of the Community Action Agencies Insurance Group Fund (CAAIG Trust), alleging breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants unlawfully refused to transfer Head Start's share of accumulated reserves, totaling $499,736, after Head Start withdrew from the CAAIG Trust in 1992. The court found that the CAAIG Trust segregated contributions by employer and that two purported amendments to the trust agreement, which would have prevented the transfer, were invalid. Citing ERISA Sections 1103(c)(1) and 1104(a)(1)(A) and relevant Second Circuit precedents, the court ruled that the defendants must transfer the reserve funds to a new trust for the benefit of Head Start's employees.

ERISAFiduciary DutyEmployee Benefits PlanHealth and Welfare FundTrust AgreementFund ReservesWithdrawal from FundTransfer of AssetsClass ActionBreach of Fiduciary Duty
References
14
Case No. ADJ11114962
Regular
Jan 10, 2019

HECTOR HERNANDEZ vs. MARK DATTILLO’S HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, APPLIED RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the judge's finding that the applicant's accepted head injury included a brain injury. The Board found the defendant's objections regarding notice of the brain injury claim and the timeliness of their response to medical treatment requests were unfounded. Furthermore, the Board determined that the defendant waived its right to dispute the industrial causation of the brain injury by previously authorizing treatment with a neurologist who diagnosed such an injury. The defendant's due process claims were also rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTraumatic Brain InjuryExpedited HearingFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4610Utilization ReviewPrimary Treating PhysicianAgreed Medical ExaminationWCJ
References
9
Case No. ADJ8835979
Regular
Aug 27, 2015

Antonio Vera Munoz vs. Parkwood Landscape Maintenance, AMTRUST

This case concerns a worker who sustained a fall and claimed injury to his head, brain, back, and knee. The defendant failed to deny the claim within 90 days, triggering a presumption of compensability. While the defendant presented medical evidence suggesting the applicant's seizure was non-industrial, the Appeals Board found insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption for all claimed injuries. Consequently, the Board amended the findings to include head injury as presumed industrial, affirmed the back and knee injuries, and ordered further development on the wrist injury claim, while denying removal.

WCABDWC-190-day presumptionLabor Code section 5402Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalindustrial injuryorthopedic injuryseizurecysticercosis
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. Headly

Plaintiff Carter Howard, an inmate, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against prison officials Headly, Crum, and Fiegl-Bock, alleging violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Howard claimed he was forced to perform strenuous work beyond his physical capabilities despite medical restrictions and repeated complaints, leading to further injuries. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and on qualified immunity grounds. The Court denied the motion, finding that Howard sufficiently alleged an Eighth Amendment claim based on deliberate indifference to his serious medical condition and that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

Civil RightsInmate RightsEighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual PunishmentDeliberate IndifferencePrison ConditionsMedical RestrictionsQualified ImmunityMotion to DismissPleading Standards
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2014

Gallen v. County of Rockland

This case concerns an appeal by defendants Jay L. Lombard and Brain Behavior Center-Rockland from the denial of their motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice and wrongful death action. The plaintiff's decedent, after a suicide attempt, was discharged from Valley Hospital with a safety contract. The same day, he was seen by defendant Lombard, a neurologist, who performed a suicide assessment, prescribed medication, and concluded there was no immediate risk, but the decedent committed suicide a week later. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the appellate court affirmed, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether Lombard departed from good medical practice by failing to obtain prior records and conducting an inadequate suicide assessment.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathSuicide AssessmentNeurologist LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStandard of CareProximate CausePatient DischargePsychiatric Treatment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pik Quan Leong v. 127 Glen Head Inc.

The plaintiff, Pik Quan Leong, initiated an action against 127 Glen Head Inc. (Kiraku Japanese Restaurant) and its owner, Jin Hang Zheng, alleging violations of Title VII, FLSA, New York Executive Law, and other state and city labor regulations, primarily focusing on unpaid overtime wages. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability for her overtime pay claims. The court denied the plaintiff's motion, citing the presence of genuine issues of material fact regarding the actual hours worked, the typical pay rate, the amount of overtime hours, and the compensation received for overtime. The court also noted inconsistencies in the plaintiff's complaint and affidavit, as well as issues with missing time card records, contributing to the denial.

Overtime PaySummary Judgment MotionFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeEmployment LitigationMaterial FactsRecordkeeping InconsistenciesDistrict CourtCashier Employment
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 419 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