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

Maliqi v. 17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc.

The court addresses motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence related to the plaintiff's immigration status, future lost wages, and medical expenses in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff, an undocumented political asylum seeker named Maliqi, was injured while working. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant for the jury to consider potential economic realities if he is deported, it cannot be used to argue that his status prohibits awards for future lost wages or medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendant is precluded from asserting that the plaintiff was working illegally at the time of the accident. The court also permitted expert testimony from an economist regarding future damages but denied the admission of testimony from the plaintiff's immigration counsel as an expert.

Workplace InjuryUndocumented WorkerPolitical AsylumImmigration StatusLost WagesMedical ExpensesEvidence AdmissibilityMotions in LimineExpert TestimonyEconomic Damages
References
13
Case No. ADJ12441930
Regular
Dec 21, 2020

MARIA ESQUIVEL vs. THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP

This case involves a worker's compensation claim for a psychiatric injury sustained by Maria Esquivel against The Permanente Medical Group. The Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, affirming the finding that Esquivel's injury was predominantly caused by actual events of employment, not merely a stage for personal issues. Evidence included coworker harassment, a restraining order against a coworker who stalked her daughter using company resources, and threats perceived as life-threatening. The Board distinguished this case from precedent where workplace gossip was deemed incidental, finding instead a direct causal link between Esquivel's employment and her injury.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationExecutive Order N-68-20Atascadero Unified School District v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Geredes)causal connectionpsychiatric injuryneuropsychological panel qualified medical examinationDr. Kyle Van Gaasbeekco-employeesGlenda Carrera
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. New York State Department of Labor

In this concurring opinion, Judge Abdus-Salaam argues against the majority's expansion of the workplace exception to the warrant requirement, asserting it infringes upon a government employee's reasonable expectation of privacy under the New York Constitution and the Fourth Amendment. The judge contends that placing a GPS device on a personal car to investigate workplace misconduct, even during work hours, requires a warrant. Citing cases like People v Weaver and United States v Jones, the opinion highlights the highly intrusive nature of GPS surveillance, which can reveal extensive personal information. It distinguishes the search of a personal vehicle from workplace searches permitted under O’Connor v Ortega, emphasizing that a personal car is outside the employer's control and traditional workplace boundaries. The opinion warns that allowing warrantless GPS tracking sets a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to widespread electronic surveillance of government employees based on a mere 'reasonableness' standard without judicial oversight.

GPS trackingWarrant requirementWorkplace exceptionFourth AmendmentNew York ConstitutionGovernment employeesPrivacy rightsWorkplace misconductElectronic surveillancePersonal vehicle search
References
11
Case No. ADJ9242655
Regular
Aug 22, 2014

Michelle Justus vs. Folsom-Cordova Unified School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding treatment outside the Medical Provider Network (MPN). The WCJ correctly granted the applicant's motion to treat outside the MPN because the defendant failed to provide access within the required distance to the applicant's *present* workplace, not just the injury site. The Board affirmed that the term "workplace" in the regulation refers to the employee's current location of regular employment. Therefore, the defendant's argument that they met MPN access standards based on the former workplace was rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMPNPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ8 CCR section 9767.5(b)substantive rightliabilityinjury workplacepresent workplacegeographic location
References
4
Case No. ADJ2901317 (FRE0226671)
Regular
May 02, 2011

Connie Mehia vs. CITY OF FRESNO C/O AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS (AARLA)

The applicant sought workers' compensation benefits for a stroke, claiming it arose out of and in the course of employment due to workplace stress. The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) denied the claim, finding no credible evidence that a workplace incident caused the stroke. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the WCJ's decision, concluding that the applicant failed to prove the crucial element of a work-related precipitating event. Both QMEs opined the stroke could be industrially related, but their opinions relied on the applicant's account of a specific workplace argument that the WCJ found unsubstantiated.

AOE/COEindustrial strokeworkers' compensationreconsiderationcausationpre-existing conditionQualified Medical Examinercredibilitysubstantial evidencework-related stress
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2007

Salvador-Pajaro v. Port Authority

This case involves a Port Authority police officer who sued the Port Authority for personal injuries, alleging an unsafe workplace in New Jersey. The Port Authority's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was initially denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the motion and dismissing the complaint. The court ruled that New York's Labor Law § 27-a, which was the basis for the General Municipal Law § 205-e claim, does not apply to the Port Authority as an Interstate Compact agency, particularly without concurring legislation from New Jersey. Additionally, New York Labor Law provisions concerning workplace safety do not apply to workplaces located outside of New York, even if both the injured worker and the employer are New York domiciliaries.

Interstate Compact AgencyWorkplace SafetyJurisdictionExtraterritorial ApplicationLabor LawGeneral Municipal LawSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryPort AuthorityEmployer-Employee Relations
References
5
Case No. 2021-02-0225
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2023

Randall, Wilma v. Food Lion and Delhaize America, Inc.

The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a trial court's denial of medical benefits to employee Wilma Randall, who sought treatment for pulmonary conditions allegedly caused by workplace chemical exposure at Food Lion, operated by Delhaize America, Inc. The employer denied causation, asserting no evidence of the conditions arising primarily from or being aggravated by workplace exposures. The trial court initially found insufficient evidence for the employee to likely prevail on medical causation, a decision upheld on appeal. The Appeals Board gave greater weight to the employer's expert toxicologist, Dr. Christopher Holstege, who reviewed more complete medical records and attributed symptoms to an infectious process, over the employee's treating pulmonologist, Dr. April Lambert, who causally connected the conditions to workplace chemicals but had reviewed fewer records. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseasePulmonary ConditionsChemical ExposureMedical CausationExpert Witness TestimonyAppellate ReviewTennessee LawExpedited HearingMedical Benefits
References
6
Case No. 2016-06-1026
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2016

Bailey, Sr., Jerry W. v. Team Construction, LLC

This case concerns Jerry W. Bailey, Sr.'s request for an expedited hearing regarding medical treatment, reimbursement for past medical treatment, and temporary disability benefits, following a workplace back strain and the subsequent discovery of a thoracic mass. The central legal question revolved around whether the thoracic mass was caused by or aggravated by the workplace accident, thereby necessitating additional medical care and resulting in his inability to work. The Court, presided over by Judge Joshua Davis Baker, found that Mr. Bailey failed to provide sufficient expert medical proof to establish a causal relationship between his workplace accident and the thoracic mass, especially in light of Dr. Daniel Burrus's opinion. Consequently, the Court denied Mr. Bailey's requested relief, concluding that he was unlikely to succeed on the merits without countervailing medical evidence.

Medical CausationThoracic MassBack StrainExpedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Treatment ReimbursementBurden of ProofExpert Medical TestimonyCausation TheoryOccupational Injury
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01755
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2024

Matter of Anderson v. City of Yonkers

Melissa Anderson, a second-grade teacher, filed a workers' compensation claim alleging psychological injuries due to COVID-19 exposure and anxiety about returning to in-person teaching. The Workers' Compensation Board had previously disallowed the claim, finding the stress was not greater than that experienced by similarly situated teachers. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, highlighting an inconsistency in how the Board assesses psychological versus physical injury claims related to COVID-19, stating that both should be compensable to the same extent if caused by a workplace accident. The court clarified that a claimant could establish a workplace accident for COVID-19-related injuries by demonstrating specific exposure or an elevated risk in the work environment. The case was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for reconsideration in line with the court's guidance, requiring an assessment of a workplace accident and causal connection while considering the claimant's unique vulnerabilities.

COVID-19Psychological InjuryWorkers' CompensationWorkplace StressCausationAppellate DivisionRemandDisparate TreatmentTeacherEmployment Law
References
56
Case No. E2024-01171-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF TENNEVA AREA, INC. v. MICHAEL HUTTON

This case concerns an appeal from the Chancery Court for Sullivan County, where Goodwill Industries of Tenneva Area, Inc., and its CEO, Morris Baker (Appellees), obtained an injunction and temporary restraining order against former employee Michael Hutton (Appellant) under the Tennessee Violence in the Workplace Act (TVWA). The appellees alleged Hutton engaged in unlawful violence, specifically stalking, through persistent Facebook posts after his termination and a ban from Goodwill premises. The Trial Court granted the injunction, found Hutton in contempt for violating the temporary restraining order, and awarded attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court's judgment, finding that the majority of Hutton's Facebook posts could not reasonably be construed as 'at the workplace' as required by the TVWA. The Court concluded that only one instance of harassment occurred at the workplace, which was insufficient to establish the 'pattern of conduct' necessary for stalking under the statute. Consequently, the findings of contempt and the awards of attorney's fees were also reversed.

Workplace Violence ActInjunctionStalkingSocial Media HarassmentContempt of CourtAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationFirst AmendmentEmotional Distress
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 876 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