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. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Case No. ADJ8059450
Regular
Aug 25, 2017

REYNA I. SANCHEZ vs. UNILEVER, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ALBERTO CULVER COMPANY, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision to allow further proceedings. The employer's stipulation of employment for the entire cumulative trauma period was invalid as they only represented one insurer. Crucially, the date of injury must be determined under Labor Code § 5412 to establish liability under § 5500.5 for the correct employer(s). The applicant's election against Unilever was permissible under § 5500.5(c), and any future awards for jointly liable employers must be joint and several.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardUnileverBroadspireAlberto CulverACE American InsuranceSecond Amended Findings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5412Date of InjuryCumulative Trauma
References
0
Case No. ADJ857793 (VNO 550289)
Regular
Apr 21, 2009

OLIVIA SOSA vs. NUPLA CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over industrial injury dates and liability apportionment under California Labor Code § 5500.5. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the administrative law judge's (WCJ) findings of fact due to lack of substantial evidence regarding the date of injury. The WCAB also clarified that § 5500.5 mandates a joint and several award for an injured worker, but the ultimate liability of each defendant is determined in a separate contribution proceeding. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with these guidelines.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative TraumaLabor Code Section 5500.5Joint and Several LiabilityContribution ProceedingDate of InjurySubstantial EvidenceDue ProcessElection of DefendantReconsideration
References
2
Case No. ADJ4403161
Regular
Apr 04, 2013

LORENA IBARRA vs. BOONE INTERNATIONAL, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a joint and several award against Boone International and its carrier. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the petition for reconsideration was not properly verified and lacked merit. The WCJ concluded that defendant Select Personnel and its carrier were properly included in the joint and several award under Labor Code § 5500.5(c), as they were joined as parties before the applicant's election against Boone International. The Board affirmed that Select's rights to contribution proceedings under Labor Code § 5500.5(e) remain available.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardContinuous TraumaJoint and Several AwardLabor Code § 5500.5Petition for ReconsiderationStipulation with Request for AwardDue ProcessApportionment of LiabilityRight of ContributionEmployer Joinder
References
0
Case No. ADJ7796275
Regular
Sep 01, 2015

MORTEN ANDERSEN vs. NEW ORLEANS SAINTS, Atlanta Falcons, New York Giants, Kansas City Chiefs, Minnesota Vikings

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed California's subject matter jurisdiction over Morten Andersen's cumulative injury claim as a professional athlete, due to sufficient work performed in the state. However, the WCAB rescinded the prior finding that liability related back to the New Orleans Saints, Andersen's first employer. This was because Labor Code section 5500.5 mandates liability be allocated to employers during the year preceding the last date of injurious exposure, and the Saints did not employ Andersen during that period. The case was returned to the trial level to join subsequent employers and properly allocate liability under section 5500.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubject Matter JurisdictionIndustrial InjuryProfessional AthleteCumulative InjuryRelation Back DoctrineLabor Code Section 5500.5EmployersLiability AllocationInjurious Exposure
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1977

McCallin v. Walsh

The dissenting opinion, penned by Murphy, P. J., challenges specific provisions of Local Law No. 5, particularly those concerning smoke venting and stairway pressurization, deeming them unconstitutional and unenforceable due to economic unfeasibility and lack of clear performance standards. The dissent clarifies that Local Law No. 5 does not mandate sprinklerization, interpreting the word "exempt" in its plain meaning. While agreeing with the majority on the Fire Commissioner's authority to create fire warden positions and denying class action status in the McCallin suit, the opinion criticizes Local Law No. 5 as hastily conceived and carelessly formulated, advocating for redrafted provisions to ensure effective fire safety programs.

Local Law No. 5Fire Safety RegulationsBuilding Code ChallengesUnconstitutional ProvisionsStairway PressurizationSmoke VentingStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentClass Action LitigationFire Warden Appointment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Chapter 5 of the Laws of 1999, which attempted to rescind New York City's commuter tax for New York State residents while retaining it for out-of-State commuters. The City of New York challenged the statute on home rule grounds, while residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, along with the State of Connecticut, argued it violated the Federal Constitution's Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. The Court held that Chapter 5 did not violate state home rule provisions. However, it found the statute unconstitutional under the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses due to its discriminatory treatment of out-of-State commuters. Consequently, the 'poison pill' provision of Chapter 5 took effect, leading to the repeal of the entire New York City commuter tax as of July 1, 1999.

Commuter TaxHome Rule ProvisionsPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeState TaxationTax DiscriminationNew York CityLegislative PowerStatutory Repeal
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desser v. Ashton

This opinion addresses the sufficiency of an oral contract to satisfy the "purchaser-seller" requirement in a private action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, where no actual purchase or sale of securities occurred. The court considers whether such an oral agreement, even if potentially unenforceable under the statute of frauds, can support a federal securities claim. Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the court emphasizes a liberal and flexible construction of anti-fraud provisions to protect investors. It concludes that an action under Rule 10b-5 is not deficient merely because the contract relied upon is oral rather than written. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case is set to proceed to trial, affirming the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Securities fraudOral contractsRule 10b-5Purchaser-seller requirementStatute of fraudsPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentFederal court jurisdictionExchange Act of 1934Investor protection
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Local No. 5 v. Hudson Valley District Council Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Joint Benefit Funds

This case concerns the authority of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen to appoint trustees to employee benefit (ERISA) funds, displacing previously appointed trustees from superseded local union entities. The International Union merged local entities into a new Local 5 and appointed Emil Parietti, Jr. as its President, granting him authority to appoint trustees. A previously appointed trustee declined to be replaced, causing a dispute where the new Local 5 has fewer than its authorized number of trustees on the ERISA funds. The court found that the International Union has the ultimate authority in such matters and that the continued service of trustees against the appointing authority's wishes causes irreparable injury. While the plaintiffs' specific request for an injunction was deemed too broad, the court determined that the requirements for a preliminary injunction placing Mr. Parietti's designee were met. The court directed the parties to seek settlement and ordered the defendants to show cause why such a preliminary injunction should not be entered.

International Trade UnionsLabor Management Relations ActERISAEmployee Benefit FundsTrustee AppointmentUnion Internal StructureLocal Union MergerPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable InjuryDuty of Fair Representation
References
17
Case No. ADJ6671169
Regular
Oct 16, 2013

Christian Fauria vs. Carolina Panthers, Great Divide Insurance Co., Berkley Specialty Underwriting Managers, LLC, Washington Redskins, ESIS Insurance, New England Patriots, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Travelers Indemnity Co., Golf Insurance Co., Seattle Seahawks

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior award finding California jurisdiction over Christian Fauria's claim due to lack of "regular employment" in California, as defined by Labor Code Section 3600.5(a). The case was remanded to the trial level to determine if jurisdiction exists based on injuries sustained within California or if the contract of hire was made in California, as per Labor Code Section 5305. The WCAB also instructed the judge to address all issues, including apportionment and liability periods under Labor Code Section 5500.5. The decision highlights the need for substantial evidence to establish jurisdiction and injury contribution within the state.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardChristian FauriaProfessional AthleteIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentLabor Code Section 3600.5(a)Statute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5500.5Jurisdiction
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 1,385 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