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 22, 1987

People v. Figueroa

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court, Orange County, convicting him of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree. The defendant argued that the evidence was legally insufficient due to inconsistencies in the nine-year-old victim's testimony and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court found the victim's sworn testimony provided a rational basis for the jury's conclusion, and the evidence was legally sufficient. The court addressed the victim's delayed reporting, minor inconsistencies in her testimony, and conflicting medical expert opinions, ultimately affirming the judgment.

Rape First DegreeSodomy First DegreeSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceChild Victim TestimonyCredibility of WitnessCorroboration of TestimonyDelayed ReportingExpert Medical TestimonySexual Abuse Evidence
References
28
Case No. ADJ1063483 (SBR 0342621)
Regular
Sep 07, 2016

SONG ROGERS (Deceased); RICHARD ROGERS, vs. ALLIED VAN LINES, TRANSGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves Allied Van Lines seeking reconsideration of a prior order finding their employee, Song Rogers (now deceased), sustained a work-related injury. The employer argued the finding was based solely on the inconsistent testimony of the deceased's husband regarding employment details. The Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's findings that the husband's testimony was credible despite apparent inconsistencies. The Board emphasized the judge's opportunity to assess witness demeanor as critical to the credibility determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAllied Van LinesTransguard Insurance Company of AmericaSong RogersRichard RogersFindings and OrderDarren Bergey M.D.employee statuscredibility determinationdeposition testimony
References
0
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05618 [232 AD3d 1022]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2024

Matter of Arce v. Schear Constr., LLC

Claimant Cesar Arce filed for workers' compensation benefits alleging injuries sustained while installing sheetrock for Schear Construction, LLC. The employer controverted the claim, raising issues of causal relationship. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, finding claimant's testimony incredible due to inconsistencies with a third-party action complaint. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision and established the claim. The employer appealed, arguing that the claimant's inconsistent accounts rendered his testimony unworthy of belief. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the Board is the sole judge of witness credibility and that its determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation LawCausal RelationshipCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimSheetrock InstallationEmployer LiabilityBoard Decision AffirmedThird-Party Action
References
11
Case No. ADJ7945624
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

JUAN SANTA CRUZ vs. MARTIN RUBBER, PATRIOT RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its prior decision. The applicant claimed injury from continuous trauma as a machine operator but provided inconsistent testimony regarding lifting weights. The employer's testimony contradicted the applicant's account of his duties and lifting requirements. The Board found the applicant's testimony less credible, affirmed the judge's findings, and denied the petition for reconsideration.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportcredibilityGarza v.Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.industrial injurycontinuous traumamachine operatorPetitioner's Contentionsfraud
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S. Children

This child protective proceeding was initiated by The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children against a father accused of sexually abusing his young son, Scott, in the presence of his older son, Jonathan. When Jonathan, an alleged eyewitness, became reluctant to testify in his father's presence, the petitioner requested his testimony be taken in camera. The court denied this application, citing the respondent's due process right to confront witnesses and finding insufficient evidence of a pathological impact on the child. The court emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for in camera testimony in such cases and suggested legislative consideration for future procedures to balance child protection with parental rights.

Child Protective ProceedingIn Camera TestimonyDue Process RightsRight to ConfrontationChild WitnessSexual Abuse AllegationsFamily Court ActWitness ReluctanceBalancing of InterestsExclusion of Respondent
References
6
Case No. ADJ7079255
Regular
Nov 28, 2014

ANA LILIA GARCIA vs. VMI JEANSWEAR, INCORPORATED, FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) findings. The ALJ found the applicant's testimony regarding her injury to be unreliable and inconsistent with other evidence, including employer testimony and medical reports. Medical evidence was deemed not substantial because it relied on an inaccurate history of the applicant's job duties and symptoms. Ultimately, the Board concluded that the applicant failed to prove an industrial injury based on the lack of credible testimony and substantial medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDenying ReconsiderationCredibility FindingAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryMedical EvidenceInconsistent TestimonySubstantial EvidenceRebuttal EvidenceWCJ Report
References
2
Case No. ADJ8414182
Regular
Feb 25, 2014

VICTOR LEDESMA, (VICTOR GOMEZ LEDESMA) vs. GROUP MANUFACTURING SERVICES, HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for a left ankle and foot injury. The defendant sought reconsideration of the decision, arguing the applicant's testimony was less credible, the claim was barred as post-termination, exhibits were improperly admitted, and a defense witness was wrongly excluded. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's report. The judge found the applicant's testimony credible, noting inconsistencies and misrepresentations in the defendant's arguments and witness testimonies. Specifically, the judge determined the termination date was not a bar, the admission of exhibits was proper, and the exclusion of the unlisted rebuttal witness was warranted.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportcredibility findingGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.denial of reconsiderationoccupational injuryleft ankle and footdeburrerdenied claim
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Espino v. Louis J. Solomon, Inc.

The claimant, a warehouse worker, filed for workers' compensation benefits alleging an occupational disease to his left knee and lower back from repetitive movement. The employer controverted the claim, stating the claimant was terminated for insubordination. A WCLJ initially found the claim compensable, relying on the claimant's uncontroverted testimony. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed the WCLJ's decision, disallowing the claim due to inconsistencies in the claimant's testimony and filed forms. On appeal, the court found insufficient evidence to support the Board's decision, noting the Board's failure to consider available witness testimony and its reliance on conflicting evidence while ignoring uncontroverted evidence of a work-related injury. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseKnee InjuryLower Back InjuryRepetitive Movement InjuryCredibility AssessmentWitness TestimonySubstantial EvidenceReversalRemittal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2001

United States v. Reyes

Defendant Christopher Reyes sought a judgment of acquittal after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to transport stolen airbags in interstate commerce. The District Court, reserving judgment on the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 motion, reviewed the government's evidence to determine if Reyes' knowing and willful participation in the conspiracy was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence included testimony from a co-conspirator's employee, recorded phone calls, and an FBI agent's account of post-arrest interrogations. The Court found the evidence insufficient to establish Reyes' specific intent, citing the ambiguity of his statements and the unreliability of the FBI agent's testimony due to inconsistencies and volunteered opinions. Consequently, the defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal was granted, and the court also commented on proper grand jury procedures and witness testimony.

Criminal LawConspiracyStolen PropertyJudgment of AcquittalRule 29 MotionSufficiency of EvidenceWitness CredibilityFBI TestimonyHearsayGrand Jury Proceedings
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Cheatham

Justice Spatt dissents, voting to affirm a judgment against a defendant convicted of a crime involving a 10-year-old victim at a Queens public school. The defendant argued for reversal due to insufficient evidence and inconsistent witness testimony, or to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. Spatt, J., found the 12-year-old victim's sworn testimony, given two years after the 1985 incident, legally sufficient and the verdict supported by the evidence. The victim identified the defendant, a Parks Department employee assigned to the school's vicinity, who matched her description and had knowledge of the school. The dissent addresses and refutes the defendant's claims regarding uniform color and lack of key possession as not being decisive. The trial court's "special scrutiny" of the victim's "forthright and unwavering" testimony led to a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which Justice Spatt upholds.

Criminal LawAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceEyewitness IdentificationChild VictimSexual AssaultDissenting OpinionCriminal Procedure LawQueens County
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 2,983 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