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
Aug 13, 2012

Hart v. Astrue

Plaintiff Robert L. Hart appealed the denial of his Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits application. The District Court, reviewing a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, reversed the Commissioner of Social Security's decision. Senior District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy found that the Administrative Law Judge erred by not affording controlling weight to the plaintiff's treating physician's opinion, which restricted heavy lifting to under 15 pounds, contradicting the ALJ's finding that the plaintiff could occasionally lift 20 pounds. Furthermore, the ALJ improperly afforded minimal weight to a non-medical disability analyst's opinion and failed to consult a vocational expert despite evidence of non-exertional limitations. The case was remanded for further proceedings to correctly assess the plaintiff's residual functional capacity.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActALJ ErrorTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacityVocational ExpertNon-Exertional LimitationsMedical OpinionRemandDistrict Court Review
References
32
Case No. ADJ7945624
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

JUAN SANTA CRUZ vs. MARTIN RUBBER, PATRIOT RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its prior decision. The applicant claimed injury from continuous trauma as a machine operator but provided inconsistent testimony regarding lifting weights. The employer's testimony contradicted the applicant's account of his duties and lifting requirements. The Board found the applicant's testimony less credible, affirmed the judge's findings, and denied the petition for reconsideration.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportcredibilityGarza v.Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.industrial injurycontinuous traumamachine operatorPetitioner's Contentionsfraud
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 1999

Werner v. Ritter

The plaintiff sustained personal injuries while attempting to free his vehicle, which was lodged on a metal pipe in the defendant's parking lot. During the attempt to lift the car, his finger became trapped between the pipe and the bumper. A jury initially found the plaintiff not negligent. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, concluding that the jury's finding of no negligence was against the weight of the evidence, given the plaintiff's action of lifting the bumper while a co-worker reversed the car. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for a new trial.

personal injurynegligencejury verdictappellate reviewremittiturnew trialvehicle incidentparking lotcontributory negligence
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05102 [163 AD3d 1449]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2018

Matter of Lift Line, Inc. (Amalgamated Tr. Union, Local 282)

This case involves an appeal to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, concerning an arbitration award related to an employee's termination. The Supreme Court had partially vacated an arbitrator's decision to reinstate a grievant with back pay and benefits, reimposing the original penalty of employment termination. The Appellate Division reviewed whether the arbitrator's award was irrational or exceeded his power under CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii), considering a collective bargaining agreement's "just cause" provision and an attendance policy. The court found that the arbitrator's determination, which considered the specific facts of the grievant's one-minute tardiness, offered a "colorable justification" and was not irrational. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied the petition to vacate, granted the application to confirm, and fully confirmed the arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee TerminationJust Cause StandardAttendance PolicyJudicial Review of ArbitrationCPLR Article 75Appellate Division DecisionLabor DisputeReinstatement with Back Pay
References
13
Case No. 99-CV-1607
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2000

Gardner v. Honest Weight Food Cooperative, Inc.

Plaintiff Leslie Gardner sued Honest Weight Food Cooperative, Inc., William Zeitlow, Maryanne Winslow, and Michael Toye for employment discrimination based on Jewish ethnicity, religion, and gender under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as well as state law claims under N.Y.Exec.Law § 296 and defamation. Defendants moved to dismiss the federal claims due to the untimely filing of the Title VII complaint and argued that at-will employment could not form a contractual basis for the § 1981 claim. Defendants also sought to dismiss state law claims, including defamation. The court denied all motions to dismiss, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding the timely receipt of the Right-To-Sue letter for the Title VII claims and deferring the § 1981 at-will employment issue pending a Second Circuit decision. The court also found the state law defamation claim sufficiently pleaded.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Section 1981N.Y. Executive Law § 296DefamationSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissTimelinessRight-To-Sue Letter
References
51
Case No. VNO 0461030
Regular
Nov 30, 2007

CHRISTOPHER MENDEZ vs. GRAY LIFT, INCORPORATED, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior award and returned the case for further proceedings to determine the general employer's (Lyon Lift, Inc.) potential liability for the applicant's injury. This is to address whether Lyon had duties under workplace safety laws (Labor Code sections 6400-6404) and if its negligence, if any, contributed to the injury caused by a defective saw provided by the special employer. The Board will then determine if Lyon is entitled to a third-party credit for the applicant's settlement based on its own negligence and established credit principles.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardThird-party creditGeneral employerSpecial employerImputation of negligenceLabor Code sections 6400-6404Workplace safetyPrimary employerSecondary employerDual employment
References
5
Case No. ADJ9610649
Regular
Sep 18, 2015

MARIA CASTELLANOS vs. MEDTRONICS, ESIS CHATSWORTH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the findings of the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) who found the applicant did not sustain the alleged injury. The WCJ found the applicant's supervisor's testimony regarding the applicant's job duties to be credible, contradicting the applicant's account of heavy lifting. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations, as the judge observed the witnesses directly.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCALJcredibility determinationcumulative traumaindustrial causationstock clerkMedtronicsACE USAExhibit 1
References
0
Case No. ADJ9129316
Regular

MIN CHUL SUH vs. LA GRAPHICAL; EMPLOYERS COMP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Applicant sought reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) finding that he did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which relied on credibility determinations and found the Applicant's account of injury by a co-worker's grab or lift to be unsubstantiated by evidence. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings, which is a standard in workers' compensation appeals.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility FindingInjury AOE/COEIn Pro PerVerbal ArgumentWorkplace RadioPhysical AltercationCo-worker Intervention
References
1
Case No. ADJ7820610
Regular
Dec 12, 2012

CRISTINA SANCHEZ vs. MOLA SEWING, INC., REPUBLIC INDEMNITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Cristina Sanchez's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that she failed to meet her burden of proof. The WCJ found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility, citing inconsistencies with her deposition testimony and credible witness accounts. Specifically, the applicant's claims regarding heavy lifting, reporting injuries, and the cause of her inability to work were contradicted by evidence. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings, as is customary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DenialAdministrative Law Judge ReportCredibility FindingGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.In Pro PerPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderBurden of ProofCourse of Employment
References
1
Case No. ADJ10257125
Regular
Apr 27, 2018

THERESA LOCKHART vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

This case involves applicant Theresa Lockhart's claim for workers' compensation benefits for a right shoulder injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied her Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) decision. The WCJ found Lockhart's testimony lacked credibility, noting inconsistencies regarding the cause and timing of her injury. Specifically, defense witnesses credibly testified Lockhart admitted to injuring her shoulder lifting a grandchild prior to her claimed industrial injury. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations, finding no substantial evidence to overturn them.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantWCJcredibility determinationsindustrial injuryright shoulderarmswrists
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 750 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