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. 2014 NY Slip Op 04883 [119 AD3d 494]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2014

Ahmed v. New York City Housing Authority

The case concerns Riaz Ahmed's personal injury claim against the New York City Housing Authority. Ahmed initially filed a notice of claim alleging injuries from a sidewalk defect. The Housing Authority moved to dismiss due to an inadequate notice, prompting Ahmed to cross-move to amend the notice to reflect a ladder fall during work as a contractor and add Labor Law claims. The Supreme Court granted the amendment and denied dismissal. However, the Appellate Division reversed, ruling that the proposed amendments were substantive changes to facts and legal theories, not mere technical corrections, thereby prejudicing the Housing Authority's ability to investigate. The court also found the original notice of claim inadequate for failing to provide sufficient detail for prompt investigation, leading to the dismissal of the complaint against the Housing Authority.

Notice of ClaimAmendment of ClaimPersonal InjurySidewalk DefectLadder FallLabor Law ClaimsSubstantive ChangesTechnical MistakesPrejudiceSufficiency of Notice
References
9
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04471 [196 AD3d 1182]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2021

Omar v. Moore

Plaintiff Nasir Muzaid Omar brought an action against Michael Moore, II, and Sadeq Ahmed, alleging breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment stemming from unsatisfactory construction work. Following a prior appeal where the unjust enrichment claim against Ahmed survived, and the discontinuance of the action against Moore, Ahmed moved for summary judgment to dismiss the sole remaining unjust enrichment cause of action. The Supreme Court granted Ahmed's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed the judgment, denied Ahmed's motion for summary judgment, and reinstated the unjust enrichment cause of action, finding Ahmed failed to meet his prima facie burden.

Summary judgmentUnjust enrichmentBreach of contractNegligenceConstruction disputeAppellate reviewPrima facie showingFraudulent inducementQuasi-contractMotion practice
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ahmed v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Kalim Ahmed filed a lawsuit against the INS in February 1993, requesting a writ of mandamus to compel the issuance of a work authorization card, claiming he had applied for temporary resident status as a Special Agricultural Worker. The INS moved to dismiss the complaint, citing lack of jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and failure to prosecute under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), noting Ahmed's non-responsiveness to discovery requests and the motion itself. The Court granted the defendant's motion, concluding that Ahmed failed to demonstrate a clear right to the requested relief, thus lacking mandamus jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court found sufficient grounds to dismiss the case with prejudice due to Ahmed's prolonged and extensive inactivity, constituting a failure to prosecute his claim diligently.

MandamusJurisdictionFailure to ProsecuteImmigration LawWork AuthorizationTemporary Resident StatusSpecial Agricultural Worker ProgramFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureDismissalJudicial Discretion
References
19
Case No. AHM 0099560 AHM 0099539 AHM 0099552 AHM 0099611 AHM 0099625 AHM 0099626 AHM 0102769
Regular
Oct 16, 2007

CHERILYNN H. CAIRNS vs. CON AGRA GROCERY PRODUCTS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a prior award, establishing that the applicant is entitled to Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA) at the temporary disability rate. This VRMA is payable from November 16, 2006, onward, a date determined by the applicant's unequivocal demand for vocational rehabilitation services. The Board clarified that prior stipulations did not obligate payment from an earlier date, as VRMA is contingent upon an employee's willingness to participate in rehabilitation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA)Temporary Total Disability (TTD) rateFindings Award and OrderRehabilitation Unit (RU)Stipulation and OrderGastric Bypass SurgeryPermanent and Stationary ReportLabor Code section 139.5(c)
References
3
Case No. AHM 0118031; AHM 0118045; AHM 0118046; AHM 0118048; AHM 0118050; AHM 0118332
Regular
May 13, 2008

NHIEN TRAN vs. CARGOTEC, INC., EMPLOYERS SELFINSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of an award of $\$ 2,217.50$ for medical treatment, finding the original decision supported by substantial evidence including an Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion and fee schedule limitations. The Board also dismissed the lien claimant's amended petition for reconsideration as untimely filed, noting it was received after the statutory deadline. Furthermore, a supplemental amended petition was dismissed as unauthorized under Appeals Board rules.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings & Award & OrderAdministrative Law JudgeACOEM GuidelinesCompromise and ReleaseAgreed Medical ExaminerOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleLabor Code section 4604.5
References
4
Case No. AHM 0112008; AHM 0112035 AHM 0114238; AHM 0114239 AHM 0114240; AHM 0114241
Regular
Apr 04, 2008

DINH NGUYEN vs. CITY OF SANTA ANA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's findings. This decision was based on the judge's determination that the applicant lacked credibility due to evidence of misrepresentation in financial and military contexts. Consequently, claims for injury to the low back, right knee, and feet during specific periods were denied, and an overpayment of temporary disability benefits was upheld with a credit awarded to the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeCredibilityLow Back InjuryRight Knee InjuryFeet InjuryContinuous TraumaTemporary Disability OverpaymentPermanent Disability
References
1
Case No. AHM 107719, AHM 106525, AHM 106165, AHM 106205, AHM106504, AHM 106473
Regular
Oct 19, 2007

MARIA RODRIGUEZ, MARTHA GARCIA, EVELIA MONTES, MARIA RAMIREZ, LIDIA GODOY, MARIA RAMOS vs. MOTEL 6, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied petitions for reconsideration filed by applicants represented *pro se*, finding the petitions procedurally defective due to lack of original signatures, improper verification, and failure to state all material evidence. Furthermore, the applicants were represented by counsel at the time of filing, and their *pro se* filings were unauthorized. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicants lacked credibility and failed to prove industrial cumulative trauma injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPropria PersonaConsolidated CasesCumulative TraumaCredibility DeterminationWCJ FindingsSubstitution of AttorneyVerified PetitionLabor Code Section 5902
References
4
Case No. AHM 0096520, AHM 0109949 AHM 0095770, AHM 0095602
Regular
Aug 03, 2007

DONALD HORTON vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and vacated the prior award due to procedural errors in calculating permanent disability, specifically the improper handling of overlap and apportionment. The Board remanded the case to the trial level for further proceedings, requiring the Workers' Compensation Judge to issue new rating instructions that properly address these issues. The prior award was amended to defer decisions on permanent disability, overlap, apportionment, and attorney fees.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardDonald HortonLos Angeles County Fire DepartmentJoint Findings and AwardIndustrial InjuryFirefighterPermanent DisabilityApportionmentOverlapFormal Rating
References
6
Case No. AHM 0124082 AHM 0124083 AHM 0124085 AHM 0146447 AHM 0146449 SBR 0329311
Regular
Oct 29, 2007

JEANNETTE RODRIGUEZ vs. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, alleging errors in the stipulated agreement regarding injured body parts, indemnity amounts, and the applicability of Labor Code section 4658(d). The Board denied the petition, upholding the validity of the stipulations absent a showing of good cause to set them aside, especially given the applicant was represented by counsel at the time of agreement. The case is returned to the trial level solely for the correction of identified clerical errors in the stipulations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations With Request for AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityLabor Code Section 4658(d)Clerical ErrorsGood CauseWithdrawal of StipulationInadvertence
References
3
Case No. ADJ3646270 (AHM 0108634)
Regular
Mar 20, 2009

GERLYNN GILLOGLY vs. KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant claiming injury in 1999. The defendant sought removal of an order that took the case off calendar, arguing years of delay and prejudice. However, the Appeals Board denied removal, finding that delays were partly due to the applicant's right to change attorneys. The Board concluded there was no irreparable harm to the defendant and that evidentiary objections could be addressed at trial.

GERLYNN GILLOGLYKIMCO STAFFING SERVICES INC.LIBERTY MUTUALADJ3646270AHM 0108634Petition for RemovalOrder Denying PetitionDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedQualified Medical EvaluationTelemarketer
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 408 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