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. ADJ3925996 (FRE 0180480) ADJ360469 (FRE 0198851)
Regular
Oct 01, 2012

MICHAEL AKINS vs. THE SALVATION ARMY, Permissibly Self-Insured

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant, The Salvation Army, seeks to deny liability for applicant Michael Akins' recommended spinal surgery. While Akins sustained industrial injuries to his neck and back in 1998 and 2001, a subsequent non-industrial car accident in 2008 displaced hardware from his prior industrial surgery. The Board found that the industrial injury was a substantial contributing factor to the need for the current surgery, even though the non-industrial accident was the "most proximate cause." Therefore, the defendant remains liable for the recommended surgical intervention.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderIndustrial InjurySpinal SurgeryPrimary Treating PhysicianNon-Industrial Motor Vehicle CollisionIntervening EventAgreed Medical ExaminerCausation
References
1
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. 71 Civ. 2381
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1971

Botany Industries, Inc. v. New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Botany Industries, Inc., an employer, sought to vacate a labor arbitration award, while the New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the union, sought its confirmation and enforcement. The dispute arose from a 1966 agreement between Botany and the Joint Board, which restricted Botany from doing business with non-union manufacturers of boys', students', and junior clothing and from licensing its 'Botany' trademark under similar conditions. Botany argued these provisions constituted an illegal 'hot cargo' agreement under section 8(e) of the Labor Management Relations Act. The union contended the agreement was protected by the 'garment industry exemption' or was a 'work preservation clause.' The court, presided over by Chief Judge Edelstein, found it had jurisdiction to review the award. It determined Botany did not fall under the garment industry exemption, nor was the agreement a valid work preservation clause. Consequently, the court held the agreement void and unenforceable, thereby vacating Arbitrator Gray's award.

Labor LawArbitration AwardHot Cargo ClauseGarment Industry ExemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewUnfair Labor PracticeUnion AgreementContract EnforcementTrademark Licensing
References
40
Case No. ADJ2934117 (STK 0214084)
Regular
Jun 06, 2011

BENNIE MADAVE vs. STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation for a right shoulder rotator cuff repair surgery denied by a WCJ. The WCJ ruled the need for surgery stemmed from a subsequent non-industrial accident, not the initial industrial injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original order, and returned the case for further medical record development. This is because the medical evidence failed to definitively determine if the surgery was necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury, even if the tear itself wasn't solely industrially caused.

Rotator cuff repairIndustrial injuryNon-industrial accidentUtilization reviewPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQMEApportionmentPermanent disabilityInextricably linkedFurther development of medical record
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Marzovilla v. New York State Industrial Board of Appeals

Petitioners Nicola Marzovilla and Valodome, Inc., challenged a determination by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA) which found they violated Labor Law § 196-d by misappropriating employee tips at their New York City restaurant, iTrulli. The misappropriation occurred from 2001 to 2005 through the inclusion of senior employees, Gianni Linardic and Alex Steidl, in a mandatory tip pool, despite their ineligibility due to supervisory roles or non-service primary duties. The Department of Labor (DOL) initially assessed approximately $407,000 in owed wages, interest, and penalties, a finding largely upheld by the IBA. The Appellate Division confirmed the IBA's decision, concluding that Linardic exercised "meaningful authority" over other servers and Steidl's duties were not principally customer service, thus rendering both ineligible for tip sharing. Consequently, the determination of tip misappropriation was upheld, and the petitioners' CPLR article 78 petition was dismissed.

Tip PoolingWage MisappropriationLabor Law § 196-dIndustrial Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewRestaurant IndustrySupervisory EmployeesTip EligibilityCPLR Article 78Judicial Review
References
6
Case No. 15 Civ. 7543 (NSR)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Safe Step Walk in Tub Co. v. CKH Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Safe Step Walk In Tub Co. sued Defendant CKH Industries, Inc. for non-payment of marketing fees. CKH counter-claimed, alleging violations of franchise laws, breach of agreements, unfair business practices, and fraud. Safe Step moved to dismiss CKH’s counter-claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It determined that the relationship between the parties could plausibly constitute a franchisor-franchisee relationship under the FTC Rule and various state laws, allowing certain counter-claims to proceed. However, claims under New York and Rhode Island's "Little FTC" Acts, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition were dismissed. The court also held that Tennessee law governs the contract disputes, while state franchise laws apply where Defendant's franchises are located. Additionally, the court found that oral modifications and part performance could sustain certain contract claims despite written-only modification clauses.

Franchise LawBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionFraudMotion to DismissChoice of LawFederal Trade Commission ActState Franchise ActsPromissory EstoppelUnjust Enrichment
References
87
Case No. VNO 482752, VNO 482753
Regular
Jul 10, 2007

JESUS SANJORO vs. MOTION PICTURE AND TELEVISION FUND, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By ROYAL INDEMNITY CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's award of 46% permanent disability. The Board found, consistent with prior precedent in *Steinkamp*, that medical treatment itself is not apportionable, even if non-industrial factors contributed to the need for that treatment. Therefore, the applicant's permanent disability resulting from knee replacement surgery was not subject to apportionment based on the underlying non-industrial arthritis.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanjoroMotion Picture and Television FundRoyal Indemnity Co.VNO 482752VNO 482753Petition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderSecurity OfficerBilateral Knees
References
4
Case No. ADJ4523497 (AHM 0062594) ADJ488115 (AHM 0062669)
Regular
Jan 09, 2014

Anthony Becker vs. American Drug Stores, Broadspire

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that apportioned 25% of the applicant's permanent spinal disability to non-industrial factors. The applicant argued that the Agreed Medical Examiner established his permanent total disability was solely due to surgeries for industrial cumulative trauma. However, the Board found the defendant met its burden of proof for apportionment, as the AME's testimony supported that the applicant's pre-existing spondylolisthesis contributed to the need for two-level spinal surgery. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and affirmed the original award.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardCumulative TraumaApportionmentNon-industrial factorsAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Escobedo v. MarshallsSpondylolisthesisPreexisting developmental anomaly
References
1
Case No. TI11711888
Regular

ROBERT MCFARLAND vs. CHARLES ABBOTT ASSOCIATES, ST. PAUL TRAVELERS and its property casualty affiliates and subsidiaries

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of an award finding the applicant 100% permanently disabled without apportionment. The Appeals Board denied the petition, upholding the finding that the applicant's total disability stemmed directly from unsuccessful spinal surgery following an industrial injury. The Board relied on the *Hikida* case, which permits unapportioned awards when permanent disability arises directly from unsuccessful medical treatment, even if non-industrial factors contributed to the need for that treatment. Prior stipulations regarding apportionment were deemed not binding on new and further disability claims arising from failed surgery syndrome.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentFailed Medical TreatmentHikidaAgreed Medical EvaluatorStipulationsNew and Further Disability
References
1
Case No. ADJ4016735 (BAK 0147536)
Regular
Jun 11, 2012

COLLEEN PARHAM vs. KERN RADIOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, LEGION INSURANCE GROUP

This case involves an applicant seeking bilateral knee replacement surgery due to an admitted industrial back injury. The applicant argues the surgery is necessary to enable further treatment for her back, specifically a spinal cord stimulator. The defendants contested this, claiming the knee condition was independent and unrelated to the industrial injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the knee surgery reasonably required to relieve the industrial back injury, citing *Bolton* and *Rowan*, even if the knee condition itself was not industrial. The Board rescinded prior findings, awarding the knee surgery and deferring issues of permanent disability and temporary disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactBilateral Knee ReplacementIndustrial InjuryBack InjurySpinal Cord StimulatorTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent and StationaryQualified Medical Evaluator
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 6,531 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