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

Reyes v. Arco Wentworth Management Corp.

The plaintiff, German Reyes, was injured while employed by Grasskeepers Landscaping, Inc. on property owned by Ramapo Cirque Homeowners Association, Inc. and managed by Arco Wentworth Management Corporation. The injury occurred when his lawn mower entered a hole, causing it to tip and injure his leg. Reyes filed a lawsuit alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), citing both unsafe premises conditions and defective equipment due to the absence of an emergency shut-off switch. Ramapo moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked supervisory control over the work and that the work was routine maintenance, thus falling outside the scope of Labor Law § 241 (6). The court denied Ramapo's motion for summary judgment, determining that Ramapo failed to meet its prima facie burden regarding premises liability and that a triable issue of fact existed under Labor Law § 241 (6). The court also discussed the inadmissibility of the plaintiff's English-language affidavit without a qualified translator's affidavit, but noted that other admissible evidence, such as the translated deposition transcript, still raised sufficient issues of fact to defeat summary judgment. Arco's separate motion for summary judgment was denied as premature.

Workers' CompensationPremises LiabilityDangerous EquipmentSummary JudgmentLabor LawNotice RequirementSupervision and ControlConstruction SafetyExcavationOSHA Violations
References
45
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02783
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2021

Cantalupo v. Arco Plumbing & Heating, Inc.

Paul Cantalupo, an injured worker, and his wife, suing derivatively, commenced a personal injury action against Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., and others. Cantalupo was injured while performing air conditioning services when an unsecured 500-pound condenser head fell on his leg. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied Chase's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order by granting summary judgment to Chase for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, thereby dismissing it. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and common-law negligence claims, citing triable issues of fact regarding whether Cantalupo was engaged in repair work, whether Chase had notice of a dangerous condition, and whether Cantalupo was the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Summary Judgment MotionAppellate DivisionConstruction Site SafetyWorkplace AccidentPremises LiabilityRoutine Maintenance
References
20
Case No. LAO 801322
Regular
May 23, 2008

O.C. MARSHALL (Deceased) JENNIFER MARSHALL (Widow) vs. ARCO/BRITISH PETROLEUM; ESIS

This case concerns a widow's appeal of a denial of workers' compensation benefits for her husband's death. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied benefits, finding the death was due to natural causes and not his employment as a pipe fitter for Arco/British Petroleum. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the denial, finding the applicant's medical expert's opinion lacked substantial evidence due to an inaccurate history and incomplete analysis of the decedent's medical records and family history.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrdersAdministrative Law JudgeQualified Medical EvaluatorQMEatherosclerotic diseasehypertension
References
0
Case No. ADJ7111609
Regular
Oct 15, 2018

ENEDINA RAMOS vs. SANTPRASKASH V. BHAGAT, Dba LOS ARCOS INN, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves Enedina Ramos claiming industrial injury as a housekeeper for Santpraskash V. Bhagat, dba Los Arcos Inn, who was illegally uninsured. Bhagat contested the applicant's employee status, arguing she worked for "Jay Pachal," unknown to him. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Bhagat's petition for reconsideration. The Board found ample credible evidence supported the WCJ's finding of employment, particularly the applicant's unrebutted testimony. Bhagat failed to demonstrate how an omitted stipulation regarding hiring authority caused prejudice.

WCABillegally uninsuredUninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fundindustrial injuryhousekeeperemployment relationshippresumption of employmentcredibility of witnessostensible agenthiring authority
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cefali v. Buffalo Brass Co., Inc.

Six former employees of Atlantic Richfield Company (Arco) sued Arco and American Brass Company (ABC) after being discharged by ABC shortly after Arco sold its Metals Division to ABC. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) through mail fraud, aiming to defraud them of superior Arco severance benefits. They also brought a state law claim for breach of employment agreement. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the RICO claim because the plaintiffs failed to allege a 'pattern of racketeering activity' as required by RICO, finding the alleged acts to be part of a single transaction rather than continuous criminal activity. Consequently, the state law claim was also dismissed without prejudice due to the lack of federal jurisdiction.

RICOMail FraudRacketeering ActivitySeverance BenefitsEmployment AgreementMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7)Pattern RequirementContinuity Plus Relationship
References
15
Case No. ADJ6957540
Regular
Aug 19, 2013

GUSTAVO MOTA ARCOS vs. BBQ CHICKEN, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a $1,500 sanction order against Industrial Lien Management, Inc. (ILM) and Trinity Interpreters, Inc. The WCAB found the original sanctions order unclear, lacking sufficient explanation of the grounds for sanctions and proper notice. The case is returned to the trial level, allowing the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to recommence sanctions proceedings with proper notice and explanation if warranted. The dismissal of Trinity's lien claim remains unaffected by this decision.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial Lien ManagementTrinity InterpretersSanctions for Failure to AppearPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsWCJ ReportNotice of IntentionShow CauseLien Claim
References
7
Case No. ADJ3489554 (SFO 0460075), ADJ409657 (SFO 0473579)
Regular
May 10, 2010

REBHI AYESH vs. ARCO/BP AMERICA, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed an administrative law judge's award, ruling that the applicant is not entitled to industrial workers' compensation benefits for erectile dysfunction. The Board found the erectile dysfunction was caused by non-industrial factors like diabetes and smoking, not the applicant's work-related psychiatric injury. While the psychiatric injury was recognized as a compensable consequence of a prior back injury, medical evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate it contributed to the need for erectile dysfunction treatment. Consequently, the Board rescinded the award for further medical care related to the erectile dysfunction.

Workers Compensation Appeals Boardpsychiatric injuryindustrial injurylow back injuryerectile dysfunctiondiabetessmokingmedical treatmentcausationqualified medical evaluator
References
10
Case No. ADJ3006563; ADJ2512405; ADJ7197475; ADJ15625557; ADJ1164291; ADJ862254; ADJ2541408; ADJ1046449; ADJ3981124; ADJ3034703; ADJ18423850
Regular
Mar 13, 2025

MICHAEL GARCIA vs. CTEC, INC.; CIGA FOR INDUSTRIAL INDEMITY/FREMONT; COVER-TECH, INC.; WANTZ EQUIPMENT CO.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND; GERLAD WALBURG; STATE FARM; ARCO AM/PM; ZENITH INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Michael Garcia's Petition for Disqualification, adopting the report of Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) Noah W. Tempkin. The petition sought to disqualify WCJ Tempkin, alleging bias and fraud. The WCAB found that Mr. Garcia failed to present specific facts to support his disqualification claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 641. Additionally, the petition was found to contain numerous impermissible attachments, which were subsequently removed. The WCAB admonished the applicant to adhere to its rules in future filings.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJBiasVexatious LitigantFraudCompromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationDeclaration of ReadinessBad Faith LitigationCode of Civil Procedure
References
2
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
Showing 1-9 of 9 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