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. ADJ358084 (OAK 0320488)
Regular
Dec 19, 2008

Samuel Arledge vs. RGW Construction, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding the applicant sustained 39% permanent disability. The applicant argued for 100% disability based on a vocational expert's opinion and Labor Code section 4662. The Board found the WCJ erred by not fully considering the vocational expert's opinion, specifically regarding the applicant's employability and earning capacity post-injury. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings to re-evaluate the vocational expert's findings and determine the applicant's total disability status.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative Trauma InjuryPermanent DisabilityVocational ExpertLabor Code Section 4662Qualified Medical EvaluatorImpairment RatingWPIFunctional Capacity EvaluationTransferable Skills
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fina v. New York State Olympic Regional Development Authority

The case involves a claimant who injured his leg while serving as a volunteer ski patroller. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and the New York State Olympic Regional Development Authority, despite the claimant's initial volunteer status being established without controversy. The Board's decision reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's determination that the claimant, a volunteer, was entitled to benefits based on his regular vocation as a self-employed engineer. On appeal, the court found insufficient evidence in the record to support the Board’s determination of an employer-employee relationship, noting that the Board relied solely on the claimant's testimony from a time when his volunteer status was undisputed. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for a review of the claimant's average weekly wage based on his volunteer status.

Employer-Employee RelationshipVolunteer StatusWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAverage Weekly WageSubstantial EvidenceScope of Board ReviewSki PatrolGore Mountain Ski CenterNew York State Olympic Regional Development AuthorityRemand
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1973

In re Jones

This case concerns the foster care status of Marie Jones, born November 17, 1965, who was placed in foster care with the Commissioner of Social Services in 1968 and subsequently surrendered for adoption by her natural parents in 1969. Marie has lived continuously with her foster parents, Mabel and William Oliver, since 1968 and has developed deep emotional ties with their family. A hearing was held pursuant to Social Services Law section 392 to review her foster care status and determine her best interests. The maternal grandparents, who had regular visitation, initially sought increased visitation but later requested custody and opposed the adoption by the foster parents. The court, considering all testimony and circumstances, found it was in Marie's best interest to remain with her foster parents and ordered her placed for adoption in their home, while also allowing continued grandparent visitation.

Foster CareAdoptionChild CustodySocial Services LawBest Interest of the ChildGrandparents' RightsParental RightsDe Facto ParentFamily LawSurrender Instrument
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lyondell Chemical Co.

Mrs. Regina Jahnke sought administrative expense status under Bankruptcy Code Section 1114 for payments due under a prepetition private annuity contract from Lyondell Chemical Company, the successor to her late husband's employer, ARCO Chemical Company. Lyondell contended that the contract was not covered by Section 1114, arguing that the payments were general unsecured claims. The Court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber, agreed with Lyondell. The Court found that the contract did not qualify as a "plan, fund, or program" under ERISA standards, and furthermore, the benefits were not "retiree benefits" as defined in Section 1114(a). Therefore, Mrs. Jahnke's motion for administrative status was denied, and her claim remained a general unsecured claim.

BankruptcyAdministrative Expense StatusRetiree BenefitsAnnuity ContractEmployee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Chapter 11Unsecured ClaimsContract LawCorporate SuccessionJudicial Interpretation
References
17
Case No. ADJ1921592
Regular
Oct 10, 2008

EDWARD SHEPHERD vs. BAYSHORE SYSTEMS, CNA CASUALTY, Administered By CNA CLAIMS PLUS

The applicant sought reconsideration of a finding that his claim for further vocational rehabilitation benefits was time-barred. The Board granted reconsideration to review whether the applicant's medical condition warranted an extension of jurisdiction over his vocational rehabilitation benefits. The case is remanded to the trial level judge to determine if jurisdiction was reserved, considering the applicant's medical status and the application of relevant Labor Code sections.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation BenefitsStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5410Labor Code Section 5404.5Rehabilitation Unit DeterminationReservation of JurisdictionIndustrial InjuryEquipment MechanicApplicant's Medical Condition
References
1
Case No. ADJ1906750 (OAK 0339121) ADJ7499032
Regular
Aug 15, 2013

MARY FISHER vs. MET LIFE INSURANCE, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal to rescind the WCJ's order closing discovery and continuing the case to trial. The WCJ erred by converting a status conference into a mandatory settlement conference without adequate notice to the applicant, thereby unfairly precluding her from obtaining a required vocational expert report. Since the applicant did not expect discovery to close at the initial status conference, the Appeals Board returned the matter for a proper MSC and further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalVocational expert reportMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery closureIndustrial injuryLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)Grupe Company v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Labor Code section 5703(j)Due diligenceStatus conference
References
1
Case No. ADJ3735030 (LAO 0804978) ADJ1855956 (LAO 0804979)
Regular
Apr 10, 2013

NATALIE KIDD vs. INLAND GLOBAL MEDICAL GROUP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns Natalie Kidd's entitlement to vocational rehabilitation services after her 2001 injury. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the Rehabilitation Unit's 2008 Determination to be a final, unappealed order. This vested Kidd's right to vocational rehabilitation benefits, overriding the subsequent repeal of Labor Code Section 139.5. Consequently, Kidd is entitled to retroactive and ongoing VRMA at the temporary disability rate, with specific adjustments for periods of interrupt status and receipt of medical temporary disability.

Vocational RehabilitationVRMAQualified Rehabilitation RepresentativeQRRRehabilitation UnitDeterminationFindings Award OrderFA&OPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ
References
9
Case No. ADJ7014822
Regular
Aug 08, 2011

SARAHI CUBEDO vs. LEEMAR ENTERPRISES, INC., BENCHMARK INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award of temporary disability benefits. Defendant argued that applicant's undocumented immigration status barred her from receiving benefits despite medical ability to work in a modified capacity. The Board found the record insufficiently developed to determine the full extent of temporary disability and the validity of any modified work offers, referencing *Del Taco* which states immigration status does not affect entitlement to temporary disability but may affect vocational rehabilitation. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to develop the record and make new findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityIndustrial InjurySpine InjuryCashierUndocumented Resident StatusEqual Protection ClauseModified DutyQualified Medical Examination
References
3
Case No. ADJ3947517
Regular
Sep 30, 2009

RUDY GONZALES vs. CELITE CORPORATION, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the prior ruling that his claim for retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) was terminated by the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5 on January 1, 2009. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition, vacating the Rehabilitation Unit's order awarding VRMA because the applicant's right to benefits had not vested in a final order before the effective date of the repeal. The Board clarified that a determination of Qualified Injured Worker status does not constitute a final award of VRMA, and jurisdiction over such claims cannot be conferred by waiver. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to any further vocational rehabilitation benefits.

Labor Code section 139.5vocational rehabilitationVRMAQIWvested rightinchoate rightfinal orderrepealjurisdictionreconsideration
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,672 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