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. ADJ8010240
Regular
Nov 14, 2013

TIMETHY KINTZ vs. KDC CONSTRUCTION, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, which sought to rescind an order closing discovery and continuing the case to trial. The defendant argued the claim was barred by intoxication and that a toxicology QME report was necessary. The Board found that other dispositive issues, like statute of limitations or fraud, could be decided without a QME report. Therefore, the Board found no substantial prejudice to the defendant from the discovery closure.

Petition for RemovalLabor Code section 3600(a)(4)intoxicationqualified medical evaluators (QME)toxicologyAOE/COElachesstatute of limitationsfraudpresumption of compensability
References
5
Case No. FRE 0217800; FRE 0218000; FRE 0222219; FRE 0222220; FRE 0222221
Regular
Jun 23, 2008

JULIO ALVAREZ vs. CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant's petition for reconsideration to correct a clerical error, increasing the permanent disability rating from 10% to 11% after apportionment, as stipulated by the parties. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings that the applicant did not sustain industrial injury due to mold exposure or psychological injury, as the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for these claims. The Board found the WCJ's reliance on the toxicology expert's opinion was supported by substantial evidence, thus affirming the denial of mold-related injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentMold ExposureIndustrial InjuryAOE/COEClaim FormPresumption of CompensabilitySubstantial EvidenceClerical Error
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. New York City Transit Authority

Robert Canty, a 15-year bus operator, was terminated by the New York City Transit Authority following two positive drug tests for marihuana. Despite a hearing examiner's recommendation, the vice-president for labor relations sustained the charge. The court found that the determination was not supported by substantial evidence, noting the toxicology expert's testimony on residual drug traces. Consequently, the court annulled the termination, dismissed the charge, and ordered Canty's reinstatement with back pay, as he was not afforded proper opportunity under the Transit Authority's own regulations.

drug testingmarihuana useemployee terminationadministrative reviewlack of substantial evidencereinstatementback paybus operatordrug counseling programdisciplinary action
References
0
Case No. 8576/91
Regular Panel Decision

Nonnon v. City of New York

This consolidated case addresses personal injury and wrongful death claims due to alleged hazardous substance exposure from the Pelham Bay landfill in the Bronx. Defendants sought summary judgment, challenging the causal link between landfill exposure and increased cancer incidence. The court reviewed extensive epidemiological and toxicological expert evidence regarding acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL) and Hodgkin's disease. It found sufficient causation evidence for ALL, affirming the denial of summary judgment for those plaintiffs. However, claims for Hodgkin's disease were dismissed due to insufficient specific epidemiological data.

Toxic TortEnvironmental ContaminationLandfill LitigationAcute Lymphoid Leukemia (ALL)Hodgkin's DiseaseCausationEpidemiologyToxicologySummary JudgmentScientific Evidence
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Barrett v. Transport System of Western New York, Inc.

Decedent, a 58-year-old long-distance truck driver, was found dead in his truck in Pennsylvania. An autopsy and toxicological analysis yielded no clear cause of death. His widow filed a claim for death benefits, which the employer's carrier controverted, arguing no causal relationship to employment based on a medical consultant's report. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed compensability, citing the presumption that unwitnessed deaths occurring in the course of employment arise out of employment, which the carrier failed to rebut with substantial evidence. The employer and carrier appealed this decision, but the court affirmed the Board's determination.

Workers' CompensationUnwitnessed DeathPresumption of Arising Out of EmploymentCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceSudden Death SyndromeRebuttal of PresumptionLong-Distance Truck DriverDeath BenefitsAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Robinson v. Village of Greenport

The claimant appealed a decision by the Workmen's Compensation Board that denied her death benefits. The Board found that the decedent, a maintenance worker, did not sustain an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and had deviated from and abandoned his employment prior to the fatal accident. The decedent was instructed to stay past his shift to repair a dry well. After completing the repair, he was observed drinking at a bar located a considerable distance from his workplace. He later fell asleep in his car outside the bar and, after being awakened, crashed his vehicle a short distance away. A toxicological report confirmed a significant consumption of alcohol. The court affirmed the Board's factual determinations, finding them supported by substantial evidence, despite the argument that the decedent was an outside employee.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentDeviation from EmploymentIntoxicationDeath BenefitsSubstantial EvidenceFactual DeterminationAppellate ReviewOutside EmployeePersonal Pursuit
References
7
Case No. CV-23-2141
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Jorge Ferra

Claimant Jorge Ferra, a sound engineer, was injured in a motor vehicle accident while traveling for his employer. A toxicology screening showed he was legally intoxicated. The employer and carrier argued that intoxication was the sole cause, making the claim non-compensable under Workers' Compensation Law § 10 (1). The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a WCLJ's decision, finding that the carrier failed to prove intoxication was the *sole* cause, as a third vehicle striking claimant's car also contributed to the accident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that driving while intoxicated does not inherently constitute a deviation from employment, and the employer bears a heavy burden to overcome the statutory presumption that injuries were not *solely* due to intoxication.

Workers' CompensationIntoxication DefenseMotor Vehicle AccidentSole Cause of InjuryDeviation from EmploymentCompensabilityBlood Alcohol ContentAppellate ReviewStatutory PresumptionEmployer Liability
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2020

Matter of Mateo M. Q. (Jessica Q.)

The Suffolk County Department of Social Services initiated proceedings to terminate Jessica Q.'s parental rights over her child, Mateo M.Q., alleging permanent neglect. The child was placed in foster care at birth after both mother and child tested positive for amphetamines and marijuana. Despite diligent efforts by DSS to provide counseling, facilitate visits, and offer service referrals, the mother failed to complete mandated substance abuse programs due to attendance issues and positive toxicology results. The Family Court found permanent neglect, terminated parental rights, and awarded guardianship to DSS for adoption. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, concluding that the termination was in the child's best interests.

Parental Rights TerminationPermanent NeglectSocial Services LawFamily CourtSubstance AbuseFoster CareChild WelfareAppellate DivisionSuffolk CountyAdoption
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Michael B.

This appeal concerns six-year-old Michael B., born with cocaine toxicology and placed in foster care with his foster parents (appellant foster mother and Quintín L.). Following a prior reversal by the Appellate Division, which mandated a best-interests hearing, the Family Court awarded custody to Michael's natural father. The Appellate Division now reverses this decision, finding that the child's best interests are served by awarding custody to the foster parents. The court cited the child's strong bond with his foster parents, the natural father's deficient parenting, lack of emotional support, and potential for emotional and physical harm. The case is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing to determine the father's visitation rights.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyBest Interests of ChildFoster CareChild NeglectPsychological EvaluationFamily LawAppellate ReviewParental FitnessVisitation Rights
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pagan v. Rhea

In 2009, a petitioner, who had previously received a child advantage housing subsidy, was denied Section 8 benefits due to a six-year ineligibility period stemming from two drug-related felony convictions. She requested an informal hearing, presenting extensive documentary evidence of rehabilitation, including participation in social work and job preparation programs, successful treatment for drug addiction and schizophrenia, and positive reports from social workers and substance abuse counselors. Despite consistently negative toxicology tests, with one explained exception for pain medication, the hearing officer concluded there was an unexplained discrepancy. The court found this conclusion lacked substantial evidence and was based on speculative inferences. Consequently, the matter was remanded for reconsideration of whether the petitioner has presented sufficient objective documentary evidence to overcome the presumption of undesirability as per NYCHA guidelines.

Housing SubsidySection 8 BenefitsFelony ConvictionsDrug RehabilitationMental Health TreatmentToxicology ReportsAdministrative HearingSubstantial EvidenceDiscretionary DecisionRemand
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 13 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