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

Claim of Richman v. NYS Unified Court System

This case concerns an appeal regarding a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The claimant suffered an unwitnessed injury at work, leading to a presumption of compensability under Workers' Compensation Law § 21 (1). The employer attempted to overcome this presumption with an expert's opinion suggesting the ruptured aneurysm was unrelated to employment. However, the Board found the expert's testimony not credible, particularly due to evasiveness regarding the role of work-induced stress and high blood pressure in the aneurysm's rupture. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's conclusion, finding no basis to disturb the finding that the employer failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of compensability.

Workers' CompensationAneurysmWork StressPresumption of CompensabilityExpert CredibilityUnwitnessed InjuryBlood PressureMedical OpinionBoard DecisionAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 1984

Claim of Bennett v. G. O. Dairies, Inc.

A claimant was injured by gunshots after parking her car across the street from her workplace, where she regularly drove the store manager. She testified that she was paid from 7:00 a.m., and her transportation services for the manager were known and beneficial to the employer. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment, citing the presumption under Workers’ Compensation Law Section 21(1). The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, arguing she had not commenced employment duties or reached the premises. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding ample basis to conclude her activities were job-related and that the presumption was not rebutted.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentSpecial Errand ExceptionPresumption of CausationArising Out Of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentInjury en routeShooting IncidentEmployer BenefitPaid Travel Time
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01369 [194 AD3d 92]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2021

Sagaille v. Carrega

This case addresses whether a sexual assault victim can face a defamation lawsuit based solely on her report to the police. The lower court had found that such reports were presumptively malicious, a ruling that the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed. The Appellate Division stated there is no legal basis to infer actual malice simply from the nature of sexual assault accusations. The court emphasized that such a presumption would undermine the qualified privilege protecting victims and deter them from reporting sexual assaults. Consequently, the court granted the motion to dismiss the defamation and libel per se claims against the defendant, Christina Carrega, dismissing the complaint in its entirety.

DefamationSexual AssaultQualified PrivilegeActual MalicePolice ReportsVictim RightsAppellate ReviewDismissal of ComplaintFirst DepartmentJudiciary Law
References
7
Case No. ADJ967988 (VNO 0449090)
Regular
Jul 01, 2009

MARIA G. MAYA vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CMS

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision denying her claim for cumulative trauma injury to various body parts, arguing the employer failed to deny her claim within 90 days, thus triggering a presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 5402. The WCAB denied reconsideration, affirming the trial judge's finding that section 5402's 90-day period does not commence until a claim form is properly filed. The Board noted that the applicant did not provide proof of when the relevant claim form was received by the employer, and an earlier claim form pertained to a different, specific injury. Therefore, the applicant failed to establish the basis for the presumption of compensability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentLabor Code Section 5402Presumed CompensableCumulative Trauma
References
2
Case No. ADJ1732179 (LBO 0394128)
Regular
Feb 15, 2011

LISA WLADKOWSKI vs. BALL METAL CONTAINER CORP.; DISCOVERY MANAGERS, administered by SPECIALITY RISK SERVICES

In this workers' compensation case, the Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order that struck a Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) report due to an allegedly excessive deposition fee. However, the Board granted the defendant's alternative petition for removal. The Board found no legal basis to strike a QME's report solely because their deposition fee exceeds the presumptive statutory rate. Consequently, the original order striking the report was rescinded, and the matter was returned for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQMEdeposition testimonyexcessive feemedical legal fee schedulestriking medical reportpetition for reconsiderationpetition for removalevidentiary order
References
5
Case No. ADJ8706052 ADJ10117581
Regular
Sep 19, 2018

ROMALDO TRUJILLO QUINTERO vs. CHAMBERLAINS FARMS, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the prior Findings and Order regarding cumulative trauma injury. The Board found the applicant's cumulative trauma claim presumed compensable due to the employer's failure to deny it within the statutory 90-day period. This presumption could not be rebutted by evidence not obtainable with reasonable diligence within that timeframe, and the WCJ's basis for rebuttal was deemed inadequate. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardFindings and Orderpermanent disabilityindustrial injurycumulative traumaadministrative law judgeQualified Medical Evaluatorsorthopedic injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ10173387; ADJ19907358; ADJ3052978; ADJ3882676; ADJ4063239; ADJ4429907; ADJ883851; ADJ8926536
Regular
Sep 22, 2025

AURORA MUNOZ vs. FIRST GROUP AMERICA, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant's petition for reconsideration of a denial of increased benefits for serious and willful misconduct by her employer. The applicant, a bus driver, was injured when a passenger lift malfunctioned. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the employer did not engage in serious and willful misconduct, as they reasonably relied on a mechanic's report stating the vehicle was safe to operate after an electrical short. The Board also found no basis for a presumption of serious and willful misconduct due to the employer's alleged failure to respond to discovery requests, as such procedures are not typically applicable in workers' compensation proceedings.

Serious and Willful MisconductLabor Code Section 4553Vehicle Inspection ReportPassenger LiftMechanic's Opinion"OK to Drive"Knowledge of DangerIntentional ActReckless DisregardAdverse Inference
References
11
Case No. 530186
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2020

Matter of Turner v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision

Claimant Holly Turner sought workers' compensation death benefits following the passing of her husband, a former correction officer with a permanent partial disability. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim, finding no causal relationship between his employment and death. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed this decision, rejecting the application of the Workers' Compensation Law § 21 (1) presumption because the death occurred years after employment ceased and was not unwitnessed. The court further concluded that the medical opinion provided by the decedent's pain management specialist, Anuj Sharma, lacked sufficient evidentiary basis as he admitted to not reviewing crucial medical records, including those detailing chronic hypertension and noncompliance with treatment.

Death BenefitsCausal RelationPermanent Partial DisabilityHypertensive Heart DiseaseSedentary LifestyleWeight GainSmokingChronic HypertensionPresumption of CompensabilityMedical Evidence Sufficiency
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pinto v. Southport Correctional Facility

Claimant, a teacher at a maximum-security correctional facility, experienced severe head pains and disorientation, leading to a claim for workers' compensation benefits for work-related stress, depression, headaches, and memory loss. The Workers’ Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding the presumption of work-related injury rebutted and concluding that the stress experienced was not greater than that usually encountered in his work environment. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board’s decision to deny the claim on the merits. While the court disagreed with the Board's finding that the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7) due to personnel decisions, it upheld the Board's alternate basis for denial, stating that the claimant failed to show the stress was beyond what similarly situated workers experienced.

Workers' CompensationStress-related injuryMental injuryCausationPresumption of injuryRebuttal of presumptionPersonnel decisionWork environmentCorrectional facilityTeacher
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2004

People v. S.G.

This case involves a judicial determination of a defendant's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) duration of registration and level of notification, following her conviction for promoting prostitution. The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended a Level 2 designation, but the People failed to provide timely notice of their intent to seek a different determination, thus waiving their right to argue for higher points. The court assessed 45 points based on various risk factors, resulting in a presumptive Level 1 sex offender classification, contrary to the Board's Level 2 recommendation. Even if a Level 2 designation were reached, the court found significant mitigating factors, such as the defendant's remorse, educational achievements, and participation in rehabilitation programs while incarcerated, justifying a downward departure to Level 1. Ultimately, the court designated the defendant a Level 1 sex offender, requiring a 10-year registration period, and found no basis for lifetime registration.

Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA)Risk AssessmentLevel 1 Sex OffenderPromoting ProstitutionCorrection Law § 168-nForcible CompulsionAccessorial LiabilityDownward DepartureMitigating FactorsDue Process
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,631 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