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. 2007 NY Slip Op 30531(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2007

Schirmer v. Athena-Liberty Lofts, LP

This case is an appeal from an Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a personal injury action. The plaintiff, a worker at a construction site, sustained injuries, leading to the site owner, Lofts, settling the claim after being found liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). Lofts then pursued indemnity claims against lighting contractor HP and the plaintiff's employer, Burgess. The Appellate Court modified the lower court's decision, vacating the finding that Lofts' settlement amount was reasonable due to Lofts' failure to properly demonstrate reasonableness and its mischaracterization of waiver arguments by HP and Burgess. The Court also affirmed the denial of HP's motion for summary judgment, citing unresolved factual issues concerning inadequate lighting as a cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnity ClaimLabor Law § 240(1)Appellate DivisionThird-Party ActionSettlement ReasonablenessCross ClaimsInadequate Lighting
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S.H.

The Onondaga County Department of Social Services filed a motion requesting that reasonable efforts to reunite a child, born in August 2002 and removed from home in February 2003, with his parents were not required. The father had been convicted of a sex offense against a half-sibling, and his parental rights to another half-sibling were terminated. Both parents were found to have neglected, severely abused, and repeatedly abused the subject child. The mother admitted knowing about the sexual abuse but failed to intervene. The court found that the Department met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the parents subjected the child to aggravating circumstances and failed to demonstrate that reunification was in the child's best interests. Consequently, the motion to dispense with reunification efforts was granted.

Child NeglectSevere AbuseRepeated AbuseParental Rights TerminationSexual OffenseAggravated CircumstancesFamily Court ActSocial Services LawReunification EffortsFoster Care
References
2
Case No. ADJ7112948
Regular
Mar 30, 2017

LYLE BYNUM vs. VALLEJO TRANSIT, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award. The Board issued a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions against the defendant's attorney and insurance company for alleged bad faith actions. These actions included filing a petition for reconsideration with inaccurate and unsupported references to evidence, misrepresenting medical opinions, and asserting meritless contentions. The WCAB is considering sanctions of up to $2,000 and reasonable expenses due to these alleged violations of labor code and board rules.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10561Findings and AwardWCJBus DriverBack InjuryLeft Lower Extremity Injury
References
0
Case No. 2023-06-4955
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2024

Kean, Carma v. NAVION BKE BELLEVUE, LLC

Navion BKE Bellevue, LLC, filed a motion for partial summary judgment, contending there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding permanent impairment from Ms. Kean’s work-related injury. After a hearing, the Court granted the motion, finding no permanent impairment. However, because the parties agreed the claim was compensable, the Court ordered Navion to provide continuing reasonable and necessary medical treatment. The Court dismissed Ms. Kean's claim for permanent disability benefits with prejudice but affirmed her entitlement to future medical benefits, the need for which must be determined at the time they are requested.

Summary JudgmentPermanent ImpairmentMedical Treatment BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdmissibility of EvidenceC-32 FormsMedical Records AdmissibilityWaiver of ObjectionCompensabilityTemporary Disability Benefits
References
6
Case No. ADJ4673406 (ANA 0403334) ADJ4233924 (ANA 0376527)
Regular
Sep 29, 2009

Joseph Vella vs. Hitchcock Automotive, State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case concerns a dispute over the reasonableness of a lien claimant's billing for outpatient surgery services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the original award, finding the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by concluding the lien claimant met its burden based solely on its usual billing practices without a proper analysis of reasonableness. The Board remanded the case to the ALJ to determine a reasonable fee considering all evidence, including the lien claimant's and defendant's submissions, as outlined in *Kunz* and *Tapia*. The decision emphasizes that the lien claimant bears the affirmative burden to prove the reasonableness of its fee.

Kunz doctrinelien claimantreasonable feerebuttal evidenceTapiabillingmedical treatmentoutpatient surgeryinpatient hospitalDRG
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kiphart v. Saturn Corp.

Ronald Jeffrey Kiphart sued Saturn Corporation and two unions under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging failure to reasonably accommodate his disabilities. Kiphart claimed multiple physical and mental impairments, including tendinitis, ulnar neuropathy, a fused cervical spine, and chronic depression, which he argued substantially limited his major life activities. Saturn contended Kiphart was not disabled under the ADA and was not a qualified individual, emphasizing that task rotation was an essential job function he could not perform. The company also asserted it provided reasonable accommodations through its Member Placement Program, offering temporary assignments and medical leave. The Court granted Saturn's motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding that no reasonable fact-finder could find Kiphart disabled, qualified, or that Saturn failed to provide reasonable accommodation. Consequently, Kiphart's claims against Saturn were dismissed with prejudice.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActReasonable AccommodationEssential Job FunctionsTask Rotation PolicyChronic DepressionTendinitisUlnar NeuropathyCervical Spine InjuryMedical Leave
References
41
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 32865(U)
Regular Panel Decision

Pomahac v. TrizecHahn 1065 Avenue of the Americas, LLC

The plaintiff slipped and fell in a building lobby due to a wet floor and subsequently sued the building manager (TrizecHahn) and maintenance company (ABM) for negligence, alleging a failure to place sufficient mats. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they took reasonable precautions by deploying two mats, a caution sign, and having an employee mop. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions on reargument. However, the appellate court reversed, granting summary judgment to the defendants, stating their actions constituted reasonable precautions as a matter of law. The court also held that failure to adhere to an internal policy for mat placement does not automatically equate to negligence if that policy's standard exceeds reasonable care. A dissenting opinion argued that a triable issue of fact existed concerning the reasonableness of precautions given recurring hazardous conditions and insufficient mat coverage.

Summary JudgmentNegligencePremises LiabilityWet FloorBuilding MaintenanceReasonable Care StandardInternal PolicySlip and FallTerrazzo FloorAppellate Division
References
24
Case No. W2015-01462-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Jean Dedmon v. Debbie Steelman

The Tennessee Supreme Court granted an appeal to resolve whether its prior holding in West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp. applies to personal injury cases, specifically regarding the determination of 'reasonable medical expenses.' The Court clarified that the West decision, which defined 'reasonable charges' under the Hospital Lien Act, is limited to that statute and does not extend to personal injury claims. Upholding Tennessee's long-standing collateral source rule, the Court ruled that plaintiffs may present evidence of full, undiscounted medical bills as proof of reasonable expenses. Conversely, defendants are prohibited from introducing evidence of discounted rates accepted by medical providers due to the plaintiff's insurance, as such evidence contravenes the collateral source rule. The Court affirmed the appellate court's decision to allow full medical bills as evidence but reversed its stance on allowing defendants to introduce evidence of discounted payments to rebut reasonableness.

Personal InjuryCollateral Source RuleMedical ExpensesReasonable ChargesHospital Lien ActInsurance BenefitsTort LawDamagesAbrogation of RuleEvidentiary Rule
References
108
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vinokur v. Sovereign Bank

Plaintiff Faina Vinokur sued Sovereign Bank for employment discrimination based on disability (rheumatoid arthritis), age (born 1954), and national origin (Russian), under the New York State Executive Law and New York City Human Rights Law. She also alleged failure to reasonably accommodate her disability and retaliatory termination. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court found that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for age and national origin discrimination, or that the bank's reason for termination (violation of Bank Secrecy Act policies regarding suspicious transactions) was a pretext for discrimination. Regarding disability discrimination, the court concluded that the plaintiff was reasonably accommodated and that her termination was not linked to her disability. The court also dismissed the retaliation claim, finding that while there was temporal proximity between her accommodation request and termination, the bank had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her discharge that the plaintiff failed to show was pretextual. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationAge DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationReasonable AccommodationBank Secrecy Act ViolationsFinancial TransactionsPrima Facie Case
References
59
Case No. ADJ6845087
Regular
Feb 27, 2017

DENNIS DEMARCO vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration in the case of Dennis Demarco. The defendant failed to meet its burden of proof for apportionment because the medical opinions presented were not sufficiently reasoned or based on reasonable medical probability. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning, which found the opinions of the agreed medical evaluators regarding industrial causation for sleep disorders to be persuasive.

ApportionmentMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceReasonable Medical ProbabilitySpeculativePertinent FactsAdequate ExaminationIndustrial CausationSleep DisordersAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 5,609 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