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. 09-CV-4074 (ADS)(AKT)
Regular Panel Decision

In re Gentiva Securities Litigation

This case involves a consolidated securities fraud class action filed by the Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System (LACERS) against Gentiva Health Services, Inc., and several of its executives. LACERS alleged that Gentiva inflated its stock price by ordering medically unnecessary home health services and billing Medicare for them. After initial dismissals and amendments, the court addressed a motion for partial reconsideration. The court dismissed remaining claims against former CFO John R. Potapchuk and the corporate entity Gentiva but sustained Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims against former CEO Ronald A. Malone, based on a theory of motive and opportunity related to insider stock sales.

Securities FraudClass ActionStock ManipulationMedicare FraudScienterMotive and OpportunityControl Person LiabilityPSLRARule 10b-5Securities Exchange Act of 1934
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Piccoli v. New York State Police

A State trooper, while on duty, fainted and sustained a chin laceration during a blood draw from a suspect. His claim for workers' compensation was initially found compensable by an Administrative Law Judge but reversed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which determined his fainting was not employment-caused. The Board concluded that there was substantial evidence to overcome the statutory presumption that the injury arose out of employment. This appeal affirmed the Board's decision.

Fainting injuryState trooperWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory presumptionEmployment injuryBlood draw incidentCausationSubstantial evidenceBoard decisionAppellate review
References
2
Case No. ADJ7284840
Regular
Jan 29, 2016

Sean Nguyen vs. Los Angeles Times, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Sean Nguyen's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which found that Nguyen sustained only a back laceration in a 1989 injury, with treatment not necessary after December 8, 1989. The judge found the applicant's subsequent claims of extensive injuries, including neck and back pain, were not supported by credible medical evidence from the time of the incident. The petition was also denied for failing to specify the statutory basis or detail the grounds for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportLabor Code Section 5903Labor Code Section 5902Order Denying PetitionSEAN NGUYENLOS ANGELES TIMESESISADJ7284840
References
0
Case No. ADJ2023774
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

CHRISTOPHER CORBO vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns whether an applicant's severe crush injury to his left foot, involving a partial avulsion of the heel pad, constitutes an "amputation" under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(C) for purposes of extending temporary disability indemnity. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming its prior decision that the injury did not meet the definition of amputation. The Board clarified that "amputation" requires severance or removal of a limb or appendage, not merely a severe laceration or partial separation of tissue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 4656(c)(3)(C)AmputationTemporary DisabilityCrush InjuryAvulsionHeel PadCalcaneusCruz v. Mercedes-Benz of San Francisco
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Salvato v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

The claimant, an insurance agent for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, suffered lacerations and broken ribs in a car accident on January 18, 1963, while driving to his employer's office to deposit collections. The Workmen's Compensation Board found his injuries compensable as arising out of and in the course of employment. The employer appealed, arguing the claimant temporarily became an 'inside employee' during his commute to the office. The court rejected this argument, characterizing the claimant as an 'outside worker' whose trip was incidental to his employment due to his undefined territory, hours, and travel allowance. The court affirmed the Board's decision.

Outside workerInsurance agentAutomobile accidentCourse of employmentCompensabilityFixed place of employmentTravel allowanceEmployer appealWorkmen's Compensation BoardAppellate review
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03160 [184 AD3d 925]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2020

Matter of Wanamaker v. Staten Is. Zoological Socy.

Diane Wanamaker, a zookeeper, filed a workers' compensation claim after being struck by a bird, resulting in a forehead laceration and postconcussion syndrome. She was classified with a permanent partial disability and a 61% loss of wage-earning capacity. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier challenged a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding of no Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation. Their application for Board review was denied by the Workers' Compensation Board for failing to comply with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b), specifically by not stating when their objection was interposed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, upholding its authority to deny incomplete applications.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityApplication for ReviewRegulatory ComplianceAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewBoard AuthorityProcedural DefectZookeeper Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Denue v. Native Textiles

Claimant sustained a right shoulder injury while at work in July 1974. During a subsequent medical investigation for a suspected malignancy, his brachial artery was lacerated during an arteriogram, leading to a medical malpractice settlement of $6,000. The employer's insurance carrier moved to close the workers' compensation case, arguing that the malpractice action was causally related to the work injury and settled without their consent, which would bar compensation benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 29. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the malpractice action to be independent of the work-related injury. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, allowing the compensation claim to proceed.

Medical Malpractice SettlementThird-Party Action LienCarrier Consent RequirementCausation of InjuryIndependent Medical EventBrachial Artery InjuryArteriogram ComplicationNerve Root CompressionWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate Division Affirmation
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06248 [175 AD3d 895]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Matter of Workman v. Dumouchel

This case concerns an appeal regarding an order for the euthanasia of a dog, Wally, after it bit a three-year-old child, causing severe lacerations requiring surgery and 30 stitches to the buttocks. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the County Court's decision, which had upheld the Town Court's euthanasia order. The majority concluded that the child's injuries constituted a "serious physical injury" leading to "serious or protracted disfigurement" under Agriculture and Markets Law. The dissenting opinion argued that petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence of protracted or serious disfigurement and criticized the Town Court's impartiality, emphasizing that euthanasia should be a last resort.

Animal AttackDog EuthanasiaSerious Injury DefinitionDisfigurement LawAppellate DivisionNew York State LawChild SafetyEvidence StandardJudicial ImpartialityWorkers' Compensation Law Precedent
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2005

Peralta v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on her Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and also denied the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the same claim. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court granted the plaintiff's motion on the issue of liability, finding the defendant landowners absolutely liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). This decision was based on unrefuted evidence that an unsecured ladder moved, causing the plaintiff worker to fall from a height, coupled with the absence of other safety devices. The court dismissed claims of comparative negligence or that the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of her injuries, which included a lacerated thumb.

Labor LawLadder AccidentSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityProximate CauseComparative NegligenceSafety DevicesUnsecured LadderAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosen v. Nygren Dahly Co.

This appeal concerns an order from Supreme Court, Monroe County, which initially denied a third-party defendant's (Flower City Printing, Inc.) motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff, an employee of Flower City, sustained scalp and facial lacerations from a drill press. Flower City sought to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing the plaintiff did not suffer a grave injury under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. The appellate court modified the original order. It affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding an acquired brain injury but granted summary judgment dismissing claims based on permanent and severe facial disfigurement, concluding the plaintiff's scarring did not meet the 'grave injury' threshold.

Workers' CompensationGrave InjurySummary JudgmentFacial DisfigurementBrain InjuryThird-Party ComplaintAppealMonroe CountyAppellate DivisionMedical Evidence
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 23 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