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. 2016-03-1099
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2017

Lindsay, Angie v, CVS Distribution Center

Angie Lindsay, an employee of CVS Distribution Center, filed for an expedited hearing regarding a right knee injury sustained on October 29, 2015. The central legal issue was whether the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment and if she was entitled to medical and temporary disability benefits. The Court found that Ms. Lindsay's injury, occurring when she twisted in a narrow aisle to avoid a co-worker, was compensable as the narrow aisles created a peculiar hazard. The Court granted Ms. Lindsay's request for ongoing medical treatment, including surgery recommended by Dr. Paul Becker, as CVS did not provide a contrary medical opinion. However, the Court denied temporary disability benefits, concluding Ms. Lindsay had not provided sufficient evidence to establish her likelihood to prevail on that claim at a hearing on the merits, noting that no physician had taken her completely off work and she did not provide duration of restrictions or employment status.

Workers' CompensationKnee InjuryMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsExpedited HearingIdiopathic InjuryCausationMeniscus TearArthroscopic SurgeryUtilization Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 1993

Narrow v. Crane-Hogan Structural Systems, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Elderlee, Inc., sustained a herniated disc while lifting a box beam after a co-worker dropped their end. Plaintiff and his wife sued the unnamed general contractor (defendant) under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the injury was not an elevation-related hazard under Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the alleged regulatory violations under Labor Law § 241 (6) were general safety standards, not concrete specifications. The plaintiffs did not pursue their appeal concerning Labor Law § 200.

Workers' CompensationLabor LawSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryHerniated DiscElevation-Related HazardConstruction AccidentGeneral ContractorSubcontractorStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. ADJ2894818
Regular
Apr 23, 2009

DAVID L. BROWN vs. COUNTY OF MENDOCINO

This case involves a deputy sheriff's workers' compensation claim for two heart impairments sustained during a cumulative injury period. The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The prior decision had returned the matter to the trial level to address potential duplication between the two heart impairments as opined by Dr. Ng. The Board found the applicant's narrow definition of apportionment was untenable and rejected the argument that the defendant failed to raise the issue of overlap.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationWCJSupplemental Findings Award and OrderPermanent Disability RatingApportionmentHeart ImpairmentsDeputy SheriffCumulative Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meis v. ELO ORGANIZATION, LLC

The Appellate Division's order was reversed, granting summary judgment to the third-party defendant. The case revolved around the interpretation of 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, specifically whether the loss of a thumb constitutes 'permanent and total loss of use' of the hand. Citing Castro v United Container Mach. Group, the court emphasized a narrow interpretation of grave injury, rejecting the argument that thumb amputation automatically renders a hand totally useless. The certified question was answered in the negative.

Workers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryLoss of ThumbPermanent Total Loss of UseStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentAppellate Division ReversalCourt of Appeals DecisionThird-Party Defendant
References
3
Case No. ADJ6979005
Regular
Mar 13, 2012

DOMINIQUE ALLEN vs. NORDSTROM

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Nordstrom's petition for reconsideration because the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) order quashing most of Nordstrom's subpoenas duces tecum was not a final order. Nordstrom sought records to investigate an alleged psyche injury, but the ALJ found its requests overbroad and not sufficiently relevant. While the ALJ quashed most subpoenas, it allowed Nordstrom to reissue narrower requests focused on the admitted knee injury and alleged psyche injury. The WCAB found no abuse of discretion, noting that discovery should be balanced with applicant's privacy rights.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings & OpinionSubpoena Duces Tecum (SDT)OverbroadRelevanceDue ProcessDiscoveryPsychiatric ClaimPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Docteur v. Belleville-Henderson Central School District

The defendants appealed a Supreme Court judgment that awarded the plaintiff a money judgment following a jury verdict. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, finding that the defendants failed to preserve their contention regarding a lack of notice for a Labor Law § 241 (6) violation. The Court also determined that Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for a directed verdict, concluding that 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 and 23-3.4 were applicable to the facts where a wall fell on the plaintiff during demolition efforts, rejecting the defendants' narrow interpretation of these regulations.

Labor Law § 241(6)Construction AccidentDemolition SafetyDirected VerdictAppellate ReviewIssue PreservationIndustrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-3.3Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-3.4Wall CollapseJury Verdict
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Reliance Electric Industrial Co.

The plaintiff, Davis, was terminated by Reliance Electric Industrial Company for alleged excessive absenteeism shortly after sustaining a work-related injury and filing a workers' compensation claim. An arbitrator found that Davis was retaliatorily discharged, citing inconsistencies in the defendant's testimony and the unexplained absence of critical defense documents, and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, the Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, emphasizing the narrow and deferential standard of review for arbitration awards under Tennessee law. The Court concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and that the trial court was correct in affirming the award.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimArbitration AwardPunitive DamagesEmotional Distress DamagesBurden ShiftingClear and Convincing EvidenceEvidentiary IssuesArbitrator's AuthorityStandard of Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 1990

Claim of Bishop v. Remlap Construction

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed on December 20, 1990. The Board ruled that there was insufficient medical evidence to prove a prior physical impairment, thus discharging the Special Funds Conservation Committee from liability. The claimant had a congenital narrowing of the spinal canal in the lower back prior to an injury on August 5, 1988. While medical evidence showed this condition worsened the injury, the Board found it didn't meet the statutory criteria of hindering employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [8] [b]. The decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Funds Conservation CommitteeCongenital ConditionSpinal Canal NarrowingMedical EvidencePrior Physical ImpairmentHindrance to EmploymentWorkers’ Compensation Law § 15 [8] [b]Affirmed DecisionAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hormigas v. Village East Towers, Inc.

Sweeny, J.P., concurs with granting summary judgment to Village East and denying it to Command Security, but clarifies the grounds against Command Security should be narrower. The memorandum argues Mr. Hernandez was off-duty, in civilian clothes, and engaging in personal errands when he took Mr. Sanchez's car, thus not acting within the scope of his employment, which negates respondeat superior liability and negligent hiring/supervision claims against Command Security. The only basis for trial against Command Security should be its direct negligence in allowing access to car keys in an unmanned security booth, which allegedly led to the ensuing accident.

Summary JudgmentRespondeat SuperiorNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionDirect NegligenceScope of EmploymentCar TheftSecurity BoothPersonal ErrandUnauthorized Use
References
6
Case No. ADJ7357973
Regular
Apr 18, 2012

Pete Rios vs. Peppertree Distributors, Inc., FirstComp Omaha for Southern Insurance Company

This case concerns Pete Rios' workers' compensation claim, where the Appeals Board denied his petition for reconsideration. The applicant argued that temporary disability benefits should not be terminated based on a narrow interpretation of Labor Code Section 4656(c)(2). However, the Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding that the applicant's injury date of April 24, 2009, falls under LC 4656(c)(2), which limits benefits to 104 weeks within five years from the injury date. The Board noted that jurisdiction remains open for penalties and sanctions regarding delayed temporary disability payments.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPete RiosPeppertree DistributorsInc.FirstComp OmahaSouthern Insurance CompanyOrder Denying ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeTemporary Disability
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 149 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