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

Ficken v. Vocational Education & Extension Board of Suffolk

The petitioner sought review of her employment termination as a secretary by the Vocational Education and Extension Board of the County of Suffolk (VEEB) and requested reinstatement with back pay. She argued that she was discharged without the procedural protections afforded to civil servants under Civil Service Law § 75. VEEB contended that the petitioner was not covered by these protections. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing her reinstatement and back pay. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the petitioner's position, though designated 'unclassified' by Suffolk County, did not fit any category under Civil Service Law § 35, thus classifying it as 'classified' and entitling her to § 75 protections. The court emphasized that the petitioner could not be denied these rights until a proper classification was established.

Civil Service LawEmployment TerminationReinstatementBack PayUnclassified ServiceClassified ServiceCivil Servant RightsDue ProcessArticle 78 ProceedingSuffolk County
References
5
Case No. ADJ4496653 (SJO 0211862) ADJ1988083
Regular
Nov 17, 2015

MICHAEL ROSILES vs. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Both the applicant and the defendant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award finding the applicant 88% permanently disabled due to multiple industrial injuries. The applicant argued for 100% permanent disability, citing vocational expert testimony and preclusion from the open labor market under *LeBoeuf*. The defendant contested the rating, disputing findings of vertigo, sleep disorder, and cognitive disability. The Appeals Board denied both petitions, adopting the judge's report and affirming the 88% disability rating. A dissenting commissioner would have granted the applicant's petition for total permanent disability, emphasizing medical and vocational evidence of unemployability.

RosilesCounty of Santa ClaraPermanent DisabilityVocational ExpertLeBoeufVertigoNeuro-opthamologyGainful EmploymentTotal Permanent DisabilityLabor Market Preclusion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 1975

Flynn v. Mario & Di Bono Plastering Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on August 8, 1975, denying the third-party defendant’s motion for an order of preclusion or to compel plaintiffs and the third-party plaintiff to provide certain particulars. The underlying case involves a wrongful death claim by plaintiffs, whose testate iron worker allegedly died from lung cancer due to asbestos exposure at a construction site. The plaintiffs alleged negligence against the manufacturer and supplier of the asbestos product for failing to comply with statutes, rules, and regulations. The third-party plaintiff, in turn, charged the appellant (third-party defendant) with similar violations. The appellate court unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, directing the plaintiffs-respondents and third-party plaintiff-respondent to furnish a further bill of particulars. The decision highlighted the requirement in tort actions to specifically identify any statutory violations asserted.

asbestos exposurewrongful deathlung cancerstatutory violationbill of particularsnegligencethird-party claimappellate reviewmotion to precludecause of action
References
1
Case No. ADJ6413644
Regular
Apr 24, 2009

JANICE HOWELL vs. NATIONAL MENTOR HOLDINGS, dba COLE VOCATIONAL SERVICES, administered by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. The petition also sought removal, which was denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The underlying issues, such as an order compelling medical record production, are interlocutory procedural matters not subject to reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and recommendation, denying both reconsideration and removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightRemovalWCJ Report and RecommendationStipulationsOrder Compelling Production of RecordsDiscovery ProcessPrivacy
References
11
Case No. ADJ11184599, ADJ11184523
Regular
Feb 24, 2020

Gregory White vs. Sky 2 Collision Corporation, Illinois Midwest Insurance Company, Inc., National Casualty Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Gregory White's petition for reconsideration of a $47\%$ permanent disability award. White argued he was permanently totally disabled due to vocational limitations, but the Board found substantial evidence supported his ability to benefit from vocational rehabilitation. The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's finding that White was not permanently totally disabled and that his vocational expert's report was less persuasive than the defense vocational expert's. Issues regarding vocational costs were deferred pending a separate petition.

Cumulative traumaSpecific injuryLow back injuryLumbar spineBacterial infectionStreptoccocusLaminectomyPermanent disabilityVocational rehabilitationQualified injured worker
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Porcelli v. PMA Associates

Claimant sought workers' compensation death benefits for her husband's death from respiratory failure, alleging it was an occupational disease from toxic chemical exposure during his 30+ years as a printer. A WCLJ initially awarded benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board later precluded the claimant's medical expert's report and testimony due to untimely filing under 12 NYCRR 300.2 (d) (12). This preclusion led the Board to find no established causal relationship, closing the case without benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding adequate support for precluding the expert's evidence due to procedural non-compliance.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseDeath BenefitsMedical ExpertReport PreclusionTimely FilingProcedural RuleCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
6
Case No. RDG 0095368; RDG 0095369; RDG 0095573; RDG 0126270
Regular
Sep 25, 2007

HENRY PHILLIPE vs. GOTTSCHALKS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow reimbursement for the applicant's vocational expert fees, reversing the WCJ's decision. The Board found it reasonable for the applicant to hire his own vocational expert to rebut the defendant's expert, especially given the passage of time since the original vocational feasibility report. Consequently, the defendant was ordered to reimburse the applicant's attorney for the $1,075.00 vocational expert cost.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationExpert Witness FeesVocational ExpertLabor Code Section 5811Qualified Rehabilitation Representative (QRR)LeBoeuf argumentAgreed Medical Examination (AME)Permanent DisabilityIndustrial Injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ8772254
Regular
Jul 20, 2017

Lorenzo Hernandez vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Lorenzo Hernandez's petition for reconsideration, upholding the original award of 24% permanent disability for a right shoulder injury. The applicant argued that a vocational expert's report should have rebutted the scheduled disability rating, but the Board found this report insufficient. Relying on *Ogilvie* and *Dahl*, the Board determined that an applicant's amenability to vocational rehabilitation precludes using vocational expert testimony to challenge a scheduled rating based on lost earning capacity. Therefore, the vocational expert's opinion was deemed not substantial evidence to overcome the QME's scheduled rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityVocational ExpertQualified Medical EvaluatorScheduled RatingReconsiderationLabor Code §4660.1AMA Guides 5th EditionAmenability to Vocational RehabilitationDiminished Future Earning Capacity
References
3
Case No. ADJ8838103
Regular
Dec 11, 2020

STEVE BOSROCK vs. BEN R. WADSWORTH, INC., DBA VALLEY GLASS COMPANY, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award. The Board found the medical evaluator, Dr. Rosenberg, should have the opportunity to review subsequent vocational evidence. This vocational evidence impacted the determination of the applicant's ability to return to the open labor market and benefit from vocational rehabilitation. The case is returned to the trial level for further medical record development and a new final decision.

Permanent DisabilityApportionmentVocational ExpertMedical ApportionmentQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)AMA GuidesWhole Person Impairment (WPI)Functional Capacity EvaluationVocational RehabilitationCompensable Consequence Injuries
References
3
Case No. ADJ10817362; ADJ10814219; ADJ10815251
Regular
Apr 14, 2023

SHANE PERRY vs. MASTEC, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, ADMINISTERED BY ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the original decision finding the applicant permanently and totally disabled, with one amendment. The Board agreed to exclude the applicant's vocational rebuttal expert's report, as recommended by the Workers' Compensation Judge. However, the Board rejected the defendant's arguments regarding a subsequent injury, the vocational expert's legal standard, and the exclusion of defense vocational expert evidence.

Permanent and Total DisabilityVocational ExpertPetition for ReconsiderationMedical EvidenceLegal StandardAdmissibility of EvidenceCompensable Consequence InjuryLabor Market AccessDiminished Future Earning CapacityQME Reporting
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 725 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