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

Jo v. JPMC Specialty Mortg., LLC

Mee Jin-Jo (now deceased and represented by her daughter Billian Jo) filed a pro se lawsuit against JPMC Specialty Mortgage, LLC, alleging improper retention of property after her eviction. Following a jury verdict of "no cause of action," Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court addressed Plaintiff's grievances concerning evidentiary rulings, consistency between in limine rulings and trial decisions, the presence of a corporate representative, proper service of discovery documents, opportunity to review deposition transcripts, judicial conduct, and the admissibility of new evidence and lay opinion testimony. The Court denied the motion, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a new trial was warranted.

Motion for New TrialRule 59 FRCPEvidentiary RulingsJury VerdictHarmless ErrorCorporate RepresentativeDeposition TranscriptLay Opinion TestimonyFederal Rules of EvidenceJudicial Discretion
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2007

Drake v. Woods

Paris Drake petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his New York state conviction for Assault in the First Degree and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree. Drake argued that the trial court violated his due process right to a fair trial and his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation by refusing to recall a witness (Carl Fortner) and by not inspecting a witness's (Witness A) psychiatric records or allowing cross-examination on her mental health. The court first addressed procedural default, finding that state appellate courts did not clearly rely on procedural bars. On the merits, the court denied both grounds for relief, concluding that the trial court's evidentiary rulings were not erroneous and did not deprive Drake of a fundamentally fair trial or his confrontation rights, as the jury had sufficient information to assess witness credibility.

Habeas CorpusSixth AmendmentDue ProcessConfrontation ClauseEyewitness IdentificationPsychiatric RecordsCross-ExaminationProcedural DefaultEvidentiary RulingsAssault First Degree
References
105
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rowe v. Board of Education

Plaintiff sued Chatham Central School District Middle School for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in the school cafeteria, allegedly due to accumulated mud, water, and a lack of rain mats. The defendant School District subsequently impleaded the Chatham Central Teachers’ Association, claiming the Association was in control of the cafeteria and responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. Following a trial, the jury rendered a verdict of no cause for action in favor of both the School District and the Association. However, Special Term set aside this verdict and granted a new trial, based on evidence suggesting an accumulation of mud and water and the defendant's failure to provide janitorial services. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed Special Term's order, reinstating the original jury verdict, concluding that the jury's finding was not against the weight of the evidence given the conflicting testimony presented at trial.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySlip and FallJury VerdictWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewNew Trial Order ReversedSchool CafeteriaChatham Central School DistrictColumbia County
References
3
Case No. LBO 381709
Regular
Mar 11, 2008

ANGELA POPS vs. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES (Adjusting Agent)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Wells Fargo's petition for reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order, but rather from a procedural order setting a case for trial. The WCAB also denied Wells Fargo's petition for removal, finding that they failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the trial setting, especially since their failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference was due to institutional neglect. The Board emphasized that the WCJ followed proper procedure by setting the case for trial after the defendant's no-show and that discovery could still be pursued if needed.

Mandatory Settlement ConferencePetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderDue ProcessSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmMedical LeaveInstitutional Neglect
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Health Alliance Network, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.

In this Memorandum Decision and Order, the District Court addressed post-trial motions filed by the Defendants after a jury verdict favored the Plaintiffs on claims of unpaid fees, breach of confidentiality, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Defendants sought judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 or, alternatively, a new trial under Rule 59. The Court denied the Rule 50 motion, citing procedural bars and sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury's findings. Furthermore, the Rule 59 motion for a new trial was denied, as the Court found no errors in the weight of the evidence, curative instructions, discovery, or evidentiary rulings, and deemed the verdict not excessive. Consequently, the jury's verdict was affirmed.

Judgment as a matter of lawNew trial motionBreach of confidentialityMisappropriation of trade secretsUnpaid feesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 50Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59Evidentiary rulingsDiscovery violationsJury verdict
References
28
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05688
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v. New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings

Sahara Construction Corp. challenged a determination by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that upheld civil penalties and a restitution order for violations related to a home improvement project. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed OATH's determination, finding that the imposed civil penalties of $5,000 and restitution of $230,266.63 were not disproportionate and fell within statutory guidelines. The Court also affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motions to dismiss and compel discovery, concluding they were not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Home Improvement ContractorsCivil PenaltiesRestitution AwardAdministrative Code ViolationsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSense of FairnessAdministrative Summons
References
7
Case No. ADJ441410
Regular
Oct 03, 2008

HAYDEE NUNEZ vs. FAIRMONT MIRAMAR HOTEL, COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's denial of the remaining lien balance. The Board is returning the case to the trial level to investigate potential sanctions against the lien claimant for its actions in filing the petition for reconsideration, citing alleged procedural defects and bad faith. The WCJ's original finding was that the outpatient fusion surgery was not permitted under Medicare Guidelines and the defendant paid more than the reasonable value of the services.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardFairmont Miramar HotelCommerce & Industry Insurance CompanyAIG Domestic ClaimsOutpatient Spine & Surgery CenterLien claimantIndustrial injuryLow back injuryOutpatient fusion surgeryMedicare Guidelines
References
1
Case No. ANA 0386138
Regular
Jun 18, 2008

CECIL MORTON vs. RALPH'S, Permissibly Self-Insured, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a defendant's timely petition for removal to reassign the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) due to procedural irregularities. The Appeals Board granted the removal because the defendant was first notified of the trial judge assignment at a mandatory settlement conference and the assigned WCJ failed to follow proper procedure regarding an "Order Suspending Action" for alleged inadequacy. Consequently, the case is reassigned to a different WCJ to determine readiness for trial.

WCAB Rule 10453Petition for RemovalAutomatic ReassignmentWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)Order Suspending ActionAdequacyPolicy and Procedure ManualLabor Code section 5502(e)(3)Stipulations with Request for Award
References
0
Case No. ADJ10524342
Regular
May 18, 2017

ADAM HREHOR vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, GALLAGHER BASSETT

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding a workers' compensation judge's finding of no apportionment for applicant's stipulated hypertension injury. The defendant argued the record needed further development for apportionment and that the WCJ erred in trial procedure. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and returned the matter to the trial level. This action was taken because the WCJ failed to incorporate stipulations into findings, issue an award, or follow proper procedures for undecided settlement issues.

ApportionmentHypertensionCalifornia Highway PatrolPolicy and Procedural ManualFindings of FactPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityStipulationsAwardLabor Code Section 5313
References
3
Case No. ADJ3502038 (VNO 0531200) ADJ3850322 (VNO 0531201)
Regular
Oct 21, 2010

MARIA DE LA LUZ PADILLA vs. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, INC., HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Stipulations and Award (S&A) regarding applicant's neck, shoulder, and chest injuries. The defendant claimed mutual mistake and delays by applicant's attorney as grounds to set aside the S&A. However, the WCAB found these allegations insufficient to overturn the executed contract. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the defendant's separate petition to set aside the S&A, due to apparent procedural irregularities.

Stipulations and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition to Set AsideMutual Mistake of FactGood CauseDelay in ApprovalService of DocumentEthical BreachesTrial Level ProceedingsWorkers' Compensation Judge
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 7,389 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