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
Dec 21, 2006

Command Cinema Corp. v. VCA Labs, Inc.

Command Cinema (Plaintiff) sued VCA Labs (Defendant) for breach of express contract, conversion, and breach of implied contract regarding the loss of master tapes for two adult films, 'The Last X-Rated Movie' (LXRM) and 'The Firestorm Trilogy' (FT). VCA moved to dismiss and for summary judgment on several claims, and in limine to exclude certain damages. Command cross-moved for summary judgment on conversion. The court denied VCA's summary judgment motion on the FT breach of contract claim but granted Command's summary judgment on both FT and LXRM breach of contract claims. The court granted VCA's summary judgment motions on conversion and implied breach of contract, consequently denying Command's cross-motions on these claims. Regarding damages, the court granted VCA's motion in limine to exclude lost profits for the FT contract but denied it for the LXRM contract, allowing Command to present evidence for lost asset value for LXRM. Punitive damages were also precluded.

Breach of ContractConversionImplied ContractSummary JudgmentMotion in LimineLost ProfitsPunitive DamagesMaster TapesBailmentContract Interpretation
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2000

Curran v. Auto Lab Service Center, Inc.

Michael J. Curran, a deliveryman, was injured in a truck accident and, along with his wife, sued Auto Lab Service Center, Inc., alleging faulty repairs. They attempted to amend their complaint to add D&M Auto Parts Corp., Curran's employer, as a direct defendant, claiming D&M destroyed the damaged truck and thereby impaired their ability to recover from Auto Lab. D&M, a third-party defendant, cross-moved to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing Curran's injuries did not meet the 'grave injury' threshold under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied both motions. On appeal, the court modified the order: the plaintiffs' motion to amend was properly denied as D&M had no duty to preserve the truck, but D&M's cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint should have been granted because Curran did not sustain a 'grave injury' as defined by statute.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationGrave InjurySummary JudgmentAmended ComplaintSpoliation of EvidenceEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewDuty to Preserve Evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rothenberg v. AAA Custom Lab

This case involves an appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Board's decisions which determined that a decedent's death arose out of and in the course of his employment. The decedent, a vice-president of AAA Custom Lab, was fatally shot near a diner after a reported business meeting. The appellate court affirmed the Board's findings, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the decisions. A dissenting judge argued for remittal, citing concerns about potential involvement in an illegal enterprise and insufficient exploration of the meeting's nature and its link to the homicide.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryHomicideBusiness MeetingAppellate ReviewAffirmationDissenting OpinionCausal ConnectionCourse of EmploymentArising Out Of Employment
References
2
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04073
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of Jagiello v. Air Tech Lab, Inc.

Czeslaw Jagiello had an established workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease that became disabling in 2017, in addition to a prior claim for World Trade Center site injuries, under which he received $400 weekly in temporary partial disability benefits. The dispute revolved around the amount of additional benefits for the occupational disease claim, with the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) initially determining $480.71 weekly but capping the concurrent award at $801.32 weekly, leading to an award of $401.32 weekly for the occupational disease. Jagiello argued the statutory cap should be $870.61 weekly, thus seeking $470.61 weekly. The Appellate Division affirmed the WCB's decision, clarifying that while the combined weekly benefit was statutorily capped at $870.61 under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (6), the appropriate temporary partial disability award, being two-thirds of the difference between pre- and post-accident average weekly wages, was correctly limited to $801.32, which was two-thirds of his average weekly wages at the date of disablement.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseTemporary Partial DisabilityConcurrent AwardsStatutory Maximum RatesAverage Weekly WageWorld Trade Center ClaimAppellate ReviewDisability BenefitsBenefit Calculation
References
7
Case No. 527550
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2019

Matter of Ostrzycki v. Air Tech Lab, Inc.

The claimant, Wladyslaw Ostrzycki, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which ruled he failed to demonstrate an attachment to the labor market, leading to the suspension of his benefits. Ostrzycki had established a claim for benefits due to occupational disease from repetitive stress injuries. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found he demonstrated labor market attachment, the Board modified this, finding him partially disabled and not attached to the labor market as of August 3, 2017. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Ostrzycki did not diligently seek employment within his medical restrictions, which included a 'sedentary work' limitation, after August 3, 2017. The court noted his job applications did not consider his restrictions, and he did not fully engage with recommended services like English language classes.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market AttachmentPartial DisabilitySedentary WorkOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Stress InjuriesJob Search RequirementsMedical RestrictionsAppellate Division Third DepartmentBenefits Suspension
References
7
Case No. ADJ8514496
Regular
Aug 29, 2014

RONALD FLORES OPORTO vs. THE PRINT LAB, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration in the case of Flores Oporto v. The Print Lab and The Hartford. The Board adopted and incorporated the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. They further extended great weight to the judge's credibility determination, as is customary in such matters. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was formally denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportcredibility findingGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.ADJ8514496Van Nuys District OfficeTHE PRINT LABTHE HARTFORDRonald Flores Oporto
References
1
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07633 [189 AD3d 1831]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Karwowska v. Air Tech Lab, Inc.

Three claimants appealed Workers' Compensation Board (Board) decisions denying their applications for review of Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) findings. The Board denied the applications because the claimants failed to fully complete question number 15 on their RB-89 forms, which required specifying the objection or exception made to the WCLJ's ruling and when it was interposed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, stating that the Board has discretion to deny review when parties represented by counsel fail to comply with its procedural requirements. The court found that the claimants' responses were deficient as they only identified when the objection was made, not the specific objection itself, thus violating 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1), (2) (ii).

Workers' Compensation LawBoard ReviewProcedural ComplianceApplication for ReviewRB-89 formAdministrative ReviewWCLJ DecisionAppellate ProcedureRegulatory ComplianceClaim Denied
References
13
Case No. ADJ7700512
Regular
Jan 27, 2017

John E. Skaff vs. CITY OF STOCKTON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision denying a police officer's claim for prostate cancer. The applicant sought an adverse inference against the City of Stockton for failing to produce Hazard Awareness Recognition Program (HARP) forms allegedly detailing chemical exposures during methamphetamine lab investigations. The Board rescinded the prior decision, returning the case for further development of the record. This is to determine whether the City had a duty to retain and produce the HARP forms, and if the applicant exercised reasonable diligence in seeking them. The Board will then allow the WCJ to decide if an adverse inference is warranted and issue a new decision.

Hazard Awareness Recognition ProgramHARP formsadverse inferenceindustrial causationprostate cancerchemical exposuremethamphetamine labspolice officerQualified Medical ExaminerDr. Juan Cesar Larach
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weigl v. Quincy Specialties Co.

Plaintiff Susan Weigl, a laboratory technician at Yeshiva University, suffered severe burns when her lab coat ignited during an experiment on October 31, 1989. Her workers' compensation lawyers requested Yeshiva to preserve the lab coat, but Yeshiva later claimed it could not be located. Weigl sued Yeshiva and Quincy Specialties Company (the alleged manufacturer of the coat) for negligence, product liability, and spoliation of evidence. Yeshiva moved to dismiss the spoliation claims, arguing that New York jurisdiction does not recognize such a tort and that the claims were time-barred. The court, presided over by Judge Peter Tom, denied the motion to dismiss outright. While acknowledging that New York does not recognize spoliation as a standalone tort, the court allowed Weigl to amend her complaint to pursue claims against Yeshiva for negligently and/or intentionally impairing her right to sue a third-party tortfeasor, a recognized common-law cause of action. The court found that discovery was necessary to determine the circumstances of the lab coat's disappearance and whether Yeshiva intended to obstruct Weigl's legal remedies.

Spoliation of evidenceNegligenceIntentional tortWorkers' CompensationDiscoveryStatute of LimitationsMotion to dismissLeave to amendThird-party tortfeasorLaboratory accident
References
30
Case No. AHM 0097527
Regular
Jun 04, 2008

WILLIAM DAVID SCOTT vs. DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Following a remand from the Court of Appeal for an award of attorney's fees and costs, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant's counsel $2,500 for appellate attorney's fees and $421.68 for costs. The Board found the requested 25 hours excessive for an answer of average complexity, awarding fees based on 10 hours at $250/hour, considering the attorney's experience, the results obtained, and the case's limited complexity. Costs for printing were allowed upon review of provided receipts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewAttorney's FeesCostsLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Appellate Attorney's FeesReasonable Hourly RateCase ComplexityItemization
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 74 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