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
Mar 26, 1971

Maurizio v. Hoberman

This case involves a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, dated March 26, 1971, concerning the rating examination papers of civil service workers. The initial judgment confirmed a Special Referee's report but was subsequently modified. The modification involved remanding the matter to the respondents for reconsideration, with the judgment then affirmed as modified. The court underscored that the duty to establish requirements for promotional examinations lies solely with the respondents, and judicial interference is unwarranted if exercised fairly. Although the respondents did not participate in the appeal, implying agreement with the Special Term's views, the courts reaffirmed their inability to assume the respondents' powers or duties.

Civil ServicePromotional ExaminationExamination PapersJudicial ReviewRemandSupreme CourtReferee ReportAdministrative DiscretionJudicial RestraintNew York
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2003

C.S.E.A. v. County of Dutchess

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated to challenge a determination by the County of Dutchess dated September 23, 2002, which reclassified job title duties for Social Welfare Worker II employees. The petitioners also sought to enjoin the County from mandating these employees to perform out-of-title work. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, presided over by Justice Pagones, granted the petition. On appeal, the judgment of the Supreme Court was affirmed. The reviewing court found the County's reclassification determination to be arbitrary and capricious, as it lacked a rational basis, was not based on a proper investigation, violated the rules of the Classified Service of Dutchess County, Personnel Policy Manual Rule XXII, and improperly attempted to validate previously imposed out-of-title work.

Job ReclassificationOut-of-Title WorkCPLR Article 78Administrative DeterminationArbitrary and CapriciousPersonnel PolicyJudicial ReviewGovernment EmployeesEmployment LawPublic Sector
References
6
Case No. ADJ17550375; ADJ17550386
Regular
Jul 29, 2025

JOHN RICHARD SEDANO vs. LIVE ACTION GENERAL ENGINEERING INC.; NATIONAL CASUALTY INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a 'Findings of Fact, Award & Order' (F&A) issued on March 24, 2025, by a WCJ, and issued a Notice of Intent to impose sanctions. The WCJ had found that the defendant did not provide a bona fide offer of modified duty to the applicant, John Richard Sedano, and awarded temporary disability. Defendant argued that temporary disability should not have been awarded because an offer of work was made, the award lacked substantial medical evidence, and the WCJ failed to apply apportionment under Labor Code sections 4663 and 4664. The WCAB affirmed the March 24, 2025 F&A and imposed sanctions of $750.00$ jointly and severally against the employer, insurer, administrator, and their attorneys for errors in the petition for reconsideration, including failure to cite the evidentiary record, improperly attaching documents, raising new issues, and citing non-existent legal authority. The Board also found the defendant was equitably estopped from asserting the modified work offer as a bar to temporary disability, and that the modified work offer was independently invalid due to a conflict in medical restrictions.

Temporary DisabilityModified DutyBona Fide OfferApportionmentLabor Code Sections 4663Labor Code Sections 4664SanctionsEquitable EstoppelMaximum Medical ImprovementWork Restrictions
References
10
Case No. ADJ11278893
Regular
May 24, 2019

JOHN RESPASS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an administrative law judge's decision that the employer offered the applicant modified work. The majority found the employer's supervisor's testimony credible over the applicant's regarding accommodations for his work restrictions, noting that modified duty issues do not always require expert testimony. A dissenting commissioner argued that insufficient medical and vocational evidence existed to determine if the offered work was compatible with the applicant's restrictions. The dissent advocated for further development of the record to ensure substantial justice.

Modified dutyCredibility determinationLay testimonySwivel chairSwiveling tableSelf-modifyWork restrictionsCumulative trauma injuryTemporary disabilityVocational expert
References
7
Case No. ADJ8442625
Regular
Jul 25, 2016

PATRICIA TILLMAN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION PAROLE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded an award of increased permanent disability benefits for applicant Patricia Tillman. The Board found that while the employer did not offer modified work within 60 days of the P&S date, the applicant had returned to her regular duties, and the employer had complied with the statute's intent. The Board also amended the applicant's permanent and stationary date to March 17, 2014, based on a psychological AME's report. Finally, the Board noted that the applicant was not entitled to a discount on benefits as she had not been offered modified work and had lost time from work.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityLabor Code Section 4658(d)Permanent and Stationary DateAgreed Medical ExaminerMedical Improvement (MMI)ApportionmentParole AgentIndustrial Injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ 7762176
Regular
Nov 07, 2011

MARTIN ESPARZA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns an applicant with an admitted industrial injury who was medically cleared for modified duty. The employer refused to rehire the applicant due to his inability to provide documentation of his legal U.S. work status, despite having available modified work. The applicant is receiving temporary disability benefits, which the employer seeks to terminate, arguing the applicant is partially disabled and his inability to work is due to immigration status, not the injury. The Workers' Compensation Judge recommended denying the employer's petition, citing that California law extends all state protections to employees regardless of immigration status.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardTemporary Disability BenefitsLegally EmployableModified DutyAlternate WorkImmigration StatusUndocumented WorkerLawfully EmployedSocial Security NumberIndustrial Injury
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05574
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

Matter of Molander v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Claimant Richard Molander, a mason, has an established workers' compensation claim for various health issues but worked full duty without lost time until February 2020. His New York driver's license was revoked in January 2020 due to an alcohol-related driving offense. Shortly after, he sought a medical evaluation and presented a note for modified duties to his employer, who stated no such work was available, leading to him ceasing work. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim for causally-related lost time, finding his testimony not credible and medical evidence insufficient to prove a worsening condition necessitated his departure. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Molander's withdrawal from the labor market was voluntary and not directly caused by a disability, noting a lack of objective medical evidence to the contrary.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseLost Time BenefitsDisability ClaimMedical CausationCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewLabor Market WithdrawalDriver's License RevocationModified Work Duty
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parrales v. Wonder Works Construction Corp.

The plaintiff, who sustained personal injuries while working in an elevator shaft used for demolition debris disposal, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The initial order granted the defendants' motion for reargument and, upon reargument, vacated a prior order that had granted the plaintiff summary judgment on certain Labor Law § 241 (6) claims. The appellate court modified the order, reinstating summary judgment for the plaintiff on claims predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a)(1), 23-1.20, and 23-2.5 (a), finding the plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of entitlement. However, the court also awarded summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (b), concluding that this provision lacked the specificity required for such a cause of action.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentDemolition WorkConstruction AccidentFalling DebrisIndustrial CodeComparative NegligenceAppellate ReviewKings County
References
11
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04773 [129 AD3d 471]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2015

Serowik v. Leardon Boiler Works Inc.

Jozef Serowik, an employee of GDT, sustained severe hand injuries while lowering a heavy tank, which was part of a boiler installation. The incident led to claims under Labor Law sections. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Serowik partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants appealed, and the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court dismissed Serowik's common law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and granted conditional summary judgment on common law indemnification to the defendants. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the finding of liability against defendants under Labor Law § 240 (1), determining that Leardon Boiler Works Inc. could be held liable as an agent of the owner.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentIndemnificationAppellate ReviewGravity AccidentScaffolding LawOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityProximate Cause
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reilly v. McKilligan Industrial Supply Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Chamonix Industries, Inc., sustained injuries after slipping on a nail within his employer's rented premises, which was located in a building owned by McKilligan Industrial Supply Corporation. The nail was linked to ongoing carpentry work performed by David Mattison, an independent contractor hired by McKilligan. Plaintiff initiated legal action against both Mattison and McKilligan. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to McKilligan, ruling out direct liability, vicarious liability via respondeat superior, and the applicability of Labor Law § 241. On appeal, the order and judgment were modified, reversing the grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff's claim under Labor Law § 241, finding that the statute and related administrative codes (12 NYCRR) do apply to individuals lawfully frequenting construction areas, thus creating a potential duty for the owner.

Construction AccidentPremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 241Statutory InterpretationOwner LiabilityDuty of CareAppellate ReviewTrip and Fall
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 9,631 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