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

Torre v. Logic Technology, Inc.

The claimant, employed by a contractor for General Electric, sustained a spinal cord injury while participating in a fitness class at the G.E. Fitness Center during work hours. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board found that the injury arose from and occurred during his employment, leading to an award of workers’ compensation benefits. The employer's workers' compensation carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination. It concluded that the employer sponsored the activity by offering membership fee reimbursements and by encouraging participation for client development, thus establishing a work-related connection under Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 (1) despite the voluntary, off-duty nature of the activity.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentOff-Duty Athletic ActivityEmployer SponsorshipSpinal Cord InjuryFitness CenterEmployee BenefitsReimbursementClient DevelopmentSubstantial Evidence
References
7
Case No. ADJ2120886
Regular
Oct 12, 2015

KIMBERLY VAN BUREN vs. PRIMITIVE LOGIC, INC, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY

This case concerns a worker's claim for prescribed medications. The employer argued their utilization review denial was timely, precluding the WCJ's jurisdiction over medical necessity. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the utilization review denial was untimely due to insufficient evidence of proper and timely communication to the physician. Therefore, the WCJ correctly determined the requested Lidoderm, Capsaicin, and Ketamine creams were reasonable and necessary.

Utilization ReviewTimelinessCommunicationMedical NecessityLabor Code section 4610Administrative Director Rule 9792.9.1Dubon v. World RestorationBodam v. San Bernardino CountyPrimary Treating PhysicianDr. Brendan Morley
References
2
Case No. ADJ7790908
Regular
May 21, 2015

ZHENNI LIANG vs. Q LOGIC CORPORATION, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration filed by Nogales Psychological Counseling, Inc. due to its "skeletal" nature and failure to comply with procedural rules. The petitioner had stipulated to withdraw its lien claim at a hearing but later claimed a calendaring error caused their absence. The Board found the petitioner was not aggrieved by the dismissal order and had shown no good cause to be relieved from its stipulation. Furthermore, the Board admonished petitioner's counsel for improper filing format and misrepresentation of facts.

Nogales Psychological CounselingPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation and Order to Dismiss Lien ClaimSkeletal PetitionCalendaring ErrorReport and RecommendationLabor Code section 5902WCAB Rule 10846Aggrieved PartyStipulation to Withdraw Lien
References
1
Case No. ADJ9362908
Regular
Jul 20, 2016

Amanda Wurtzberger vs. Sutter County Probation, LWP Claims Solution

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. This denial was based on the WCJ's report, which found that the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) opinion was sound, logical, and constituted substantial medical evidence. The WCJ specifically rejected the applicant's contentions that the AME's opinion was unreliable and preferred the opinions of other treating physicians, citing their lack of expertise and inadequate documentation. Therefore, the Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning and upheld the original order denying the applicant's claim for a left hip injury.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorAME opinionsubstantial medical evidenceavascular necrosisPetition for ReconsiderationdenialWCJ reportcausationindustrial injurycumulative trauma
References
1
Case No. ADJ1924276 ADJ1449948 ADJ1052896 ADJ1110587
Regular
Jun 15, 2018

JOSE AVINA vs. HIGH-TECH SEATING\/HARTFORD, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, COMMERCIAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration after their lien was dismissed for failure to appear at a conference. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the lien claimant's claim of excusable neglect insufficient to excuse the failure to calendar the hearing. Despite procedural issues with service of the dismissal order, the Board determined the lien claimant's explanation for missing the hearing lacked a logical connection to the settlement discussions they claimed excused their oversight. A dissenting opinion argued the dismissal was invalid due to defective service and that excusable neglect should have warranted reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantExcusable NeglectPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienWCJService of ProcessDue ProcessLabor Code Section 5903
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Casalaspro v. Steisel

Petitioner, a sanitation worker, was dismissed from the New York City Department of Sanitation for working at a construction site while on paid leave for a claimed line of duty injury in August 1979. He pleaded guilty to the charges but sought reinstatement via an article 78 proceeding, arguing the charges were legally insufficient and he was unaware of the plea's consequences. The court found his claims unsupported, stating his explanation defied logic and that paid sick leave is not for working elsewhere while collecting a city paycheck. The court concluded the dismissal was not arbitrary or illegal, rejecting the petitioner's arguments, and dismissed the petition.

Sanitation WorkerDismissalMisconductLine of Duty InjuryPaid Leave AbuseArticle 78 ProceedingPublic Trust ViolationEquitable PowersUnclean HandsAbuse of Discretion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 1976

Morse v. New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from October 7, 1976, which found no occupational disease. The central issue was the causal link between contact dermatitis/chemical burn sustained in employment and the present disability of mycosis fungoides, a form of cancer. The Board relied on the designated specialist, Dr. Joseph J. Eller, who reported no causal relationship. Despite the claimant's argument that Dr. Eller's cross-examination testimony logically supported a causal connection, the Board found no occupational disease and no causal relation to employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence.

Occupational DiseaseCausal ConnectionMycosis FungoidesContact DermatitisChemical BurnWeed KillerMedical TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. 07-CV-8150 & 07-CV-9488
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2009

DESKOVIC v. City of Peekskill

Plaintiff Jeffrey Deskovic initiated a civil rights action against multiple defendants, including the City of Peekskill, County of Westchester, and corrections officer Alan Tweed. Deskovic's lawsuit stems from his wrongful arrest, conviction, and incarceration for a rape and murder he did not commit, implicating several police officers and officials in fabricating evidence. He also alleged separate claims against Defendant Tweed for inappropriate pat-down searches of a sexual nature during his imprisonment. The court granted Tweed's motion to sever the claims against him, finding a lack of a logical relationship and common questions of fact or law between Tweed's alleged misconduct and that of the other defendants. The severed claims against Tweed were transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, rather than dismissed, to avoid potential statute of limitations issues.

Civil RightsWrongful ConvictionSection 1983Malicious ProsecutionIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPolice MisconductPrison AssaultSexual AssaultSeverance of ClaimsVenue Transfer
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2013

Karabinas v. Colvin

Dimitrios N. Karabinas challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his Disability Insurance Benefits application, arguing the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) committed several legal errors. The court identified flaws in the ALJ's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) assessment, including failure to accommodate Karabinas's moderate difficulties in concentration, persistence, and pace, and an incomplete function-by-function analysis of his work abilities. Furthermore, the court found the ALJ improperly weighed medical opinions, specifically downplaying the detailed report from Karabinas's chiropractor, and based its credibility determination on a circular logic. Concluding that the ALJ's errors led to an unsupported denial of benefits, the District Court reversed the Commissioner's decision. The case was remanded for the sole purpose of calculating and providing benefits to Karabinas for the specified period.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSocial Security ActRFC AssessmentMedical OpinionCredibility AssessmentVocational ExpertCervical Disc ProblemsPain ManagementChiropractic TreatmentWork Limitations
References
34
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06483
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Brewer v. Ross

Plaintiff William Brewer sought damages for personal injuries after a scaffold collapsed at the home of defendants Serina L. Ross and Milton E. Nielson, Jr. The Supreme Court dismissed Labor Law claims against the homeowners, citing the homeowner exemption, and a jury found Nielson negligent but not the proximate cause for common-law negligence. The Appellate Division reversed, finding a rational basis for a jury to deny the homeowner exemption under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) due to conflicting evidence on Nielson's control over the work. It further determined the jury's verdict on common-law negligence was inconsistent, as Nielson's alleged negligence in striking the scaffold would logically constitute proximate cause. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for a new trial on all relevant causes of action against the named defendants.

Personal InjuryScaffold CollapseHomeowner ExemptionCommon-Law NegligenceProximate CauseJury VerdictAppellate ReviewNew TrialCPLR 4401 MotionCPLR 4404(a) Motion
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 19 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