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

Diaz v. New York Downtown Hospital

The dissenting opinion by Mazzarelli, J., joined by Saxe, J., argues against granting summary judgment to New York Downtown Hospital in a case involving alleged sexual misconduct during a vaginal sonogram. The dissent asserts that the plaintiff's expert radiologist provided sufficient evidence, based on 1995 American College of Radiology (ACR) and American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM) guidelines, indicating the hospital's deviation from the standard of care by not ensuring a female chaperone was present. Mazzarelli, J., contends that these national guidelines explicitly recognized the risk of such misconduct and constitute generally accepted industry standards. The dissent also distinguishes the present case from precedents cited by the majority, emphasizing the probative value of expert testimony regarding custom and practice. Furthermore, it challenges the majority's unforeseeability argument, concluding that the guidelines delineated a foreseeable risk, thus necessitating the denial of the defendant's motion for summary dismissal.

Medical MalpracticeStandard of CareExpert TestimonySummary JudgmentDissenting OpinionRadiologySonogramHospital NegligenceProfessional GuidelinesSexual Misconduct
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harlan v. Harlan

This case involves a divorce proceeding focusing on temporary maintenance and the potential sale of the marital residence. The husband sought to fix temporary maintenance and compel the sale of their expensive home, citing financial strain. The wife, having recently retired, cross-moved for an upward deviation in maintenance and for the husband to cover household carrying charges. The court declined to order the immediate sale of the marital residence, adhering to the *Kahn v Kahn* precedent, despite acknowledging the financial impracticality. After assessing incomes and various statutory deviation factors, the court granted the wife an upward deviation, ordering the husband to pay $5,000 per month in temporary maintenance and awarded her $5,000 in legal fees.

Temporary MaintenanceDivorce LawMarital ResidencePendente Lite SaleIncome ImputationDeviation FactorsDomestic Relations LawSpousal SupportEquitable DistributionHigh Asset Divorce
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.

An eight-year-old boy, Garfield Stephenson, suffered severe burns after an eleven-year-old used a sample can of Raid Max insecticide as a 'blowtorch'. The samples, distributed by Impact Media Network, Inc. for S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., were left on apartment doorknobs in a Brooklyn housing project. Stephenson and his mother sued S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., Impact Media Network, Inc., and Foster Apartments Group (the property manager) for negligence. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. moved for summary judgment, arguing the assailant's intentional act was unforeseeable and broke the causal connection. The court granted summary judgment for S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., agreeing that the intervening criminal act was extraordinary and unforeseeable given their lack of knowledge of similar prior incidents. However, the court denied summary judgment for Impact Media Network, Inc. and Foster Apartments Group because they failed to provide affidavits demonstrating their lack of knowledge of similar prior incidents, which is crucial for establishing unforeseeability as a matter of law. Foster's cross-claim against S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. was also dismissed.

ForeseeabilityIntervening ActProximate CauseSummary JudgmentNegligenceAerosol Product LiabilityChild InjuryProduct DistributionCriminal ActHousing Project
References
12
Case No. SAL 0113698
Regular
Jul 06, 2007

Antonio Ruiz vs. Avalon Structural, ACE Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the finding that applicant Antonio Ruiz's injury did not arise out of employment. The Board found that applicant's deviation from his commute to obtain necessary safety masks for his job met the "special mission" exception to the going and coming rule. Consequently, the injury sustained during this deviation is deemed to have occurred within the course of employment.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardSpecial Mission ExceptionGoing and Coming RuleIndustrial InjuryCourse of EmploymentEmployer BenefitImplied ConsentSafety EquipmentMasksMaterials
References
10
Case No. ADJ3218180 (EUR 0040749) ADJ4708435 (EUR 0040750)
Regular
Nov 19, 2010

ROBERT ZIMMERMAN vs. BRITT LUMBER COMPANY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an appeal of permanent disability ratings for an applicant's left upper extremity and right knee injuries. The defendant contests the ratings, arguing the Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) and WCJ improperly deviated from AMA Guides methodology, particularly by combining impairment factors without adequate justification. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the AME's explanations for deviating from the Guides were insufficient. The matter is remanded for further proceedings to obtain a more adequately justified permanent disability rating.

WCABReconsiderationPermanent Disability RatingApportionmentAMA GuidesAlmaraz/GuzmanAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Grip LossStation and GaitDiagnosis Based Estimate
References
2
Case No. ADJ1805486 (GOL 0100327)
Regular
Apr 30, 2010

SUZANNE SINGER vs. DISNEYLAND, DISNEY WORLD WIDE SERVICES, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves an employee, Suzanne Singer, injured in a car accident after attending an employer-sponsored service award dinner. The employer, Disneyland, argued the injury was non-industrial due to a major deviation from a special mission exception to the going and coming rule and intoxication. While the Appeals Board agreed the injury occurred after a substantial deviation from the special mission, they noted the employer failed to prove intoxication was the proximate cause of the accident and might be estopped from raising that defense. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the finding of no industrial injury but deleted the intoxication finding.

Special mission exceptionGoing and coming ruleDeviationIntoxication defenseEstoppelCredibility determinationCourse of employmentArising out of employmentCumulative trauma injuryService award dinner
References
12
Case No. ADJ10204167
Regular
Oct 17, 2017

MARTIN POIRIER vs. MERCY HOUSING, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant suffered injuries from an automobile accident. The defendant sought reconsideration of the original finding that the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to admit the police report and applicant's recorded statement into evidence. While acknowledging issues with applicant's credibility, the Board affirmed the original finding, concluding that deviations from the commute route were minor and foreseeable. A dissenting opinion argued that the applicant's inconsistent statements and significant unaccounted-for time constituted a substantial deviation, thus abandoning employment.

AOE/COEgoing and coming rulerequired vehicle exceptionsubstantial deviationabandonment of employmentcredibility assessmentpolice reportrecorded statementcustom routeincidental personal acts
References
21
Case No. ADJ7948448
Regular
Nov 03, 1971

HENRY LOPEZ vs. WINDSOR SNF MANAGEMENT, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant who, while on a work assignment, experienced a diabetic episode causing dizziness. He stopped at a nearby market to eat and subsequently slipped and fell, injuring his hip and knee. The employer argued the injury was outside the scope of employment due to a deviation and the going and coming rule. However, the WCJ found the deviation was reasonable under the personal comfort rule for a known medical condition, and the Appeals Board adopted this reasoning, denying reconsideration. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings and resolved reasonable doubts in favor of the employee, consistent with precedent.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeCredibility FindingInjury to left hip and left kneeDiabetic episodeLow blood sugarDeviation from work assignmentGoing and coming ruleInsbexual evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Marotta v. Town & Country Electric, Inc.

The claimant, an electrician, was injured on March 14, 2005, while stopping for coffee en route to a job site, suffering herniated disks. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, deeming the coffee stop a deviation from employment. On appeal, the court found insufficient evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the claimant’s brief, customary stop constituted a deviation. The court ruled that such a momentary break did not interrupt employment, and therefore, the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, reversing the Board's decision and remitting the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentPersonal Pursuit DoctrineMomentary DeviationCoffee Break InjuryHerniated DisksAppellate ReviewBoard Decision ReversalRemitted Case
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 1990

Massio v. Pergament Distributors, Inc.

This case involves a negligence action for personal injuries where the plaintiff fell in the defendants' store. The plaintiff sustained injuries after walking across a wooden platform because a main aisle was blocked by workers. A jury, following a bifurcated trial, found the plaintiff 45% at fault and the defendants 55% at fault in the accident's causation. The defendants appealed the interlocutory judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's case should have been dismissed as a matter of law due to unforeseeable conduct. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, determining it was foreseeable for the plaintiff to cross the platform and that her actions were neither reckless nor unforeseeable, thus properly submitted to the jury.

NegligencePersonal InjuryPremises LiabilityComparative NegligenceFault AllocationInterlocutory JudgmentAppealForeseeabilityProximate CauseJury Verdict
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 184 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