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

Acevedo v. City of New York

Petitioners, 110 New York City firefighters involved in World Trade Center rescue efforts after 9/11, sought permission to file late notices of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e due to toxin exposure and subsequent respiratory illnesses. The City of New York objected, citing improper joinder of claims and lack of reasonable excuse or actual notice. The court found that common questions of law and fact allowed for joinder of the claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts surrounding the claims due to public awareness, extensive investigations, and internal Fire Department medical examinations, thus suffering no prejudice from the delayed filing. Consequently, the petition was granted, allowing the firefighters to serve and file their late notices of claim.

World Trade Center9/11FirefightersLate Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawRespiratory IllnessToxic ExposureJoinder of ClaimsActual NoticePrejudice
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1983

Claim of Palumbo v. Transport Masters International, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board initially denied a claim due to late filing and lack of advance compensation payment. A subsequently located disability benefits file was reviewed by the Board in the interest of justice. However, the Board found no evidence within this file to indicate a claim for compensation was filed as required by section 28 of the Workers' Compensation Law. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that only questions of fact were presented. The court concluded that the Board's factual findings were conclusive as they were supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Workers' Compensation BoardClaim Filing DeadlineDisability Benefits FileSubstantial EvidenceQuestions of FactAppellate ReviewTime LimitationAdvance PaymentSection 28Administrative Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. Cuevas

Petitioner filed an improper practice charge against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging that Level I supervisors were performing work previously exclusive to Level II supervisors, specifically zone supervision, booth audits, and investigations. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found a violation for zone supervision but not for the other tasks. PERB subsequently reversed the ALJ's decision regarding zone supervision, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish exclusivity. The petitioner then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination. The court, reviewing PERB's decision for substantial evidence, found that the petitioner did not meet its burden of demonstrating exclusivity for any of the disputed tasks due to significant overlap in supervisor duties. Consequently, PERB's determination dismissing the improper practice charge was confirmed.

improper practicepublic sector laborsupervisory rolesjob dutiesexclusivityCPLR article 78PERBNYCTACivil Service Lawzone supervision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coscia v. Ass'n for the Advancement of Blind & Retarded, Inc.

Claimant, a staff psychologist, was injured at work and filed for workers' compensation benefits. He subsequently filed a discrimination complaint against his employer, Association for the Advancement of Blind and Retarded, Inc., alleging retaliation for his workers' compensation claim, including demotion and exclusion from conferences. His employment was later terminated for alleged improper personal conduct. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board both ruled against the claimant, finding no evidence of discrimination under Workers' Compensation Law § 120 and concluding that the termination was due to misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the claimant failed to demonstrate a retaliatory motive and that the Board's finding of termination solely for misconduct was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeDiscriminationMisconductAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceEmployer-Employee DisputeWorkers' Compensation LawJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Skinner v. City of Amsterdam

Plaintiff Rick E. Skinner, a former employee of the City of Amsterdam, filed an employment discrimination action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He claimed a hostile work environment, retaliation for filing a complaint with the DOT, adverse employment action, improper drug tests, and improper disclosure of confidential information. The defendant, City of Amsterdam, filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. The court found that the plaintiff was not disabled under the ADA as he continued illegal drug use, the alleged harassment was not severe enough, and his retaliation claims lacked a causal connection or protected activity. The drug testing and disclosure claims were also dismissed as permissible under the ADA given the context of former substance abuse.

Employment DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActADASummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationDrug TestingConfidential InformationSubstance AbuseDisability Discrimination
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Syracuse v. Public Employment Relations Board

This case involves the City of Syracuse's unilateral implementation of procedures to terminate General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits for firefighters. Two firefighters were injured and receiving benefits; one reported late and left early for light duty, the other refused to report. The City held hearings and terminated their benefits, prompting the Syracuse Fire Fighters Association (Union) to file an improper practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging a violation of the Taylor Law. The Administrative Law Judge initially dismissed the charge, but PERB reversed this decision, finding that the procedures for terminating such benefits are a subject of mandatory bargaining. The City then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination. The court confirmed PERB's determination, holding that the City's unilateral implementation of benefit termination procedures constituted an improper practice and that a City Charter's notice of claim provision did not apply to improper practice charges filed with PERB.

Taylor LawCivil Service LawGeneral Municipal Law § 207-aImproper Practice ChargeMandatory BargainingCollective Bargaining AgreementDue ProcessLight Duty AssignmentNotice of ClaimCPLR Article 78 Proceeding
References
23
Case No. ADJ10110995 (MF)
Regular
Jun 20, 2019

Preston Lee Brown Scott vs. City of Los Angeles

Applicant Preston Lee Brown Scott, previously declared a vexatious litigant, filed multiple documents seeking relief without obtaining the required pre-filing approval. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed these filings and found no significant change in circumstances justifying reconsideration of prior rulings. Consequently, the Board issued an order stating that the submitted documents are not accepted for filing. This order reaffirms the pre-filing requirements for vexatious litigants absent representation by a licensed attorney.

Vexatious LitigantPre-Filing OrderAppeals Board Rule 10782In Pro PerApplication for AdjudicationDeclaration of ReadinessPleadingsPetitionLicensed AttorneyChange in Circumstances
References
6
Case No. ADJ460672 (SFO 0499592), ADJ224818 (SFO 0499593)
Regular
Jul 11, 2012

HAMID KHAZAELI vs. SPEDIA.COM, INC., and SYSMASTER CORP., GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO

Applicant Hamid Khazaeli has been declared a vexatious litigant under CCR Title 8, Section 10782, requiring pre-filing approval for any filings with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) unless represented by an attorney. His "Petition for Reconsideration, Removal, Disqualification, and to Compel Testimony" filed on June 29, 2012, was reviewed. The WCAB did not accept this petition for filing, deeming it largely duplicative of prior dismissed and rejected filings. This decision reinforces the applicant's status as a vexatious litigant subject to strict pre-filing review protocols.

Vexatious LitigantPre-filing OrderCCR Title 8 Section 10782Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalDisqualificationCompel TestimonyJudicial OfficersQuasi-Judicial OfficersAppeals Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ10110995
Regular
Oct 14, 2020

PRESTON LEE BROWN SCOTT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, THE HARTFORD

The applicant, Preston Lee Brown Scott, was declared a vexatious litigant in 2018 and is subject to a pre-filing order. This order requires him to obtain prior approval from a judge before filing any documents with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). He has filed multiple petitions for reconsideration without this approval. The WCAB has reviewed these filings and found no significant change in circumstances to warrant acceptance. Therefore, the documents submitted by Mr. Scott are not accepted for filing.

Vexatious litigantPre-filing orderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRule 10430Rule 10782In pro perPetition for ReconsiderationAdjudication of claimDeclaration of readinessPleading
References
16
Case No. ADJ4599548 (MON 0212034), ADJ1776170 (MON 0224335)
Regular
Sep 17, 2012

KRISTIAN VON RITZHOFF vs. OGDEN ENTERTAINMENT, AIG, BROADSPIRE, a CRAWFORD COMPANY

Kristian Von Ritzhoff has been declared a vexatious litigant by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) under California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10782. This designation requires him to obtain prior approval from the Presiding Judge or the Appeals Board before filing any pleadings, unless represented by a licensed attorney. The WCAB reviewed a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Von Ritzhoff, dated September 10, 2012, and determined it was *not accepted* for filing. This ruling signifies the Board's adherence to the pre-filing order in managing the applicant's litigation activities.

Vexatious litigantPre-filing orderWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalExtraordinary remedyDeputy CommissionerOgden EntertainmentBroadspire
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 9,924 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