Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ANA 0385835 ANA 0385836

Regular

Nov 09, 2007

HERMILO RINCON vs. PETERSON HARDWARE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order that refused to authorize a urological consultation. The denial was based on the judge's report, which found no immediate medical need for the consultation and noted the applicant's stated complaints were back pain, with the urethral stricture possibly being non-industrial. Additionally, the petition for reconsideration contained improperly filed documents.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportFuture Medical CareExpedited HearingPrimary Treating PhysicianUtilization ReviewUrological ConsultationUrethral StrictureNon-Industrial

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 23, 1992

Larchmont Professional Fire Fighters Ass'n v. Larchmont/Mamaroneck Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc.

The plaintiffs appealed from orders of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which dismissed their defamation complaint against defendants Westchester Rockland Newspapers Inc. and Marc Burrell. The action stemmed from a newspaper article and letters to the editor concerning charges against firefighter Marc Burrell for violating a union stricture by volunteering. The appellate court found that the statements in the article and letters constituted protected opinion and rhetorical hyperbole, not defamatory meaning, and were adequately supported by underlying facts. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, concluding that the expressions were constitutionally protected.

DefamationFreedom of SpeechProtected OpinionRhetorical HyperboleConstitutional LawAppellate ProcedureMotion to DismissNewspaperLetters to the EditorWestchester County

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Matice v. Groveton Papers Co.

This case involves appeals from two Workers’ Compensation Board decisions. The claimant was exposed to talc dust while working for International Talc Co. (1951-1953) and caustic chemical fumes while employed by Groveton Papers Co. (1970-1974). The Board found the claimant to be totally and permanently disabled due to a combination of talcosis and chronic bronchitis, covered by Workers’ Compensation Law § 44. Liability for compensation was apportioned equally between both employers. Both International Talc Co. and Groveton Papers Co. appealed these decisions. The court affirmed the Board's findings, supported by the testimony of an impartial medical expert, rejecting arguments regarding dust disease exclusions and time strictures for apportionment, and upholding the equal division of liability.

Occupational diseasetalcosischronic bronchitischemical fumes exposurepermanent total disabilityapportionment of liabilityworkers' compensationmedical expert testimonypre-existing conditionlast injurious exposure

References

Showing 1-3 of 3 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

HERMILO RINCON vs. PETERSON HARDWARE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Larchmont Professional Fire Fighters Ass'n v. Larchmont/Mamaroneck Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc.

DefamationFreedom of SpeechProtected OpinionRhetorical HyperboleConstitutional LawAppellate ProcedureMotion to DismissNewspaperLetters to the EditorWestchester County

Claim of Matice v. Groveton Papers Co.