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 03615
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2025

Breslin v. Access Auto Sales & Serv., LLC

Matthew M. Breslin, a cable technician, was injured after falling from an extension ladder while installing new cable service. He and his wife filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence against Access Auto Sales, Spectrum, and National Grid entities. The Supreme Court denied all parties' motions for summary judgment, citing numerous questions of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to defendants for claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, and dismissing Access Auto's cross-claims for indemnification/contribution, finding no evidence of their negligence or supervisory control. However, the denials of summary judgment for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims were affirmed, as factual disputes remained regarding the adequacy of safety equipment and the proximate cause of the accident.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Labor Law Section 200Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentLadder accidentElevation-related hazardConstruction workProximate causeIndemnification
References
30
Case No. ADJ9145724
Regular
Jun 01, 2015

ARZAGA, JOSE vs. CROWN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

This case involves an applicant seeking to select a pain management specialist outside his employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The applicant argued the MPN failed to provide a qualifying specialist within the required 15-mile/30-minute access standard for a primary treating physician. The Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, affirming the applicant's right to choose an out-of-network physician and reimbursement for investigative costs. The majority reasoned that the MPN must meet the closer access standard for a primary treating physician, even if that physician is a specialist. A dissenting opinion argued that a specialist, when chosen as a primary treating physician, should fall under the 30-mile/60-minute access standard for specialists.

Medical Provider NetworkMPNprimary treating physicianpain management specialistaccess standardAdministrative Director's Rule 9767.5investigative costsLabor Code section 5703Lescallett v. Wal-MartMartinez v. New French Bakery
References
2
Case No. ADJ9798663
Regular
Sep 02, 2015

ALEJANDRO SAUCEDO SAHAGUN vs. TXC LOUTER'S DAIRY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the previous award. The applicant sought to change treating physicians outside the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN), arguing the MPN failed to meet access standards for primary treating physicians within 15 miles or 30 minutes of his home or work. The Board found the trial judge applied an incorrect, less stringent access standard, and remanded the case for application of the proper standard. The applicant's injury and initial treatment within the MPN were admitted.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPN access standardsAdministrative Director's Rule 9767.5rural areasprimary treating physicianorthopedic physiciansoccupational health servicesLab. Code § 4600Lab. Code § 4616
References
5
Case No. ADJ8759396
Regular
Feb 27, 2015

Jose Diaz vs. Timber Works Construction, Berkshire Hathaway

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves applicant Jose Diaz seeking reconsideration of a prior order regarding his employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The primary issue is whether the MPN's physician accessibility standards, which are tied to the "workplace" or residence, are met. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the previous order, and remanded the case, finding the MPN may be defective if it doesn't comply with physician access standards relative to the applicant's residence, given the employer's failure to meet the "workplace" standard. The Board also noted that the applicant's inability to travel, while a factor, was not the deciding point in this decision to remand.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPNWorkplaceResidencePhysician Access StandardsTitle 8 Section 9767.5Pain ManagementPhysical MedicineCannot Travel Exception
References
1
Case No. ADJ9052223
Regular
Aug 05, 2016

Joel Rodriguez Luna vs. The Home Depot, Helmsman Management

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer in a maximum of four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Joel Rodriguez Luna's Petition for Removal, affirming the WCJ's finding that Home Depot's Medical Provider Network (MPN) complied with access standards. The WCJ determined that for a specialist, like an orthopedist, the MPN only needed to meet the 30-mile/60-minute access standard, not the stricter 15-mile/30-minute standard for a general primary treating physician. The Board agreed, concluding that since there was at least one orthopedic surgeon within the 30-mile radius, the MPN satisfied its obligations, despite the applicant's preference for a specialist within a closer distance. The dissenting opinion argued the MPN failed by not having at least three specialists readily available to serve as primary treating physicians for the applicant's specific orthopedic injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMedical Provider Network (MPN)Access StandardsPrimary Treating PhysicianSpecialistGeographic AreaAdministrative Director's RuleLabor CodeIndustrial Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1993

Pennisi v. Standard Fruit & Steamship Co.

A longshoreman, having received workers' compensation benefits from his employer, International Terminal Operating Company (ITO), initiated a personal injury action against Standard Fruit & Steamship Company and Netumar Lines. Standard Fruit and Netumar subsequently filed a third-party complaint against ITO for contribution and indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted ITO's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the third-party complaint. The appellate court modified this decision, reinstating Standard Fruit's indemnification claim against ITO due to unresolved factual questions regarding Standard Fruit's status as a 'vessel' and the existence of an indemnification contract. The court affirmed the dismissal of contribution claims, citing the LHWCA's exclusivity provision, and remitted the matter for a determination on sanctions.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLongshoreman InjurySummary JudgmentContribution ClaimsIndemnification ClaimsThird-Party ComplaintLHWCAVessel StatusContractual IndemnityImplied Indemnity
References
14
Case No. 07 Cv. 2014(SWK)
Regular Panel Decision

Standard Investment Chartered, Inc. v. National Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc.

The court addresses a motion for a protective order filed by defendants NASD and NYSE, seeking to prevent plaintiff Standard Investment Chartered, Inc. from disclosing documents obtained during expedited discovery. The opinion thoroughly analyzes the requirements for establishing 'good cause' under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), considering common law and First Amendment presumptions of public access. It distinguishes between judicial and non-judicial documents based on their role in the litigation, specifically examining documents related to Rule 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and reconsideration motions. Finding the defendants' current justifications for confidentiality lacking in specificity, the court requests further, more detailed submissions to demonstrate good cause. Additionally, the court denies the plaintiff's request for a mandatory disclosure of documents to the SEC.

Protective OrderExpedited DiscoveryDocument DisclosureGood Cause StandardPublic AccessCommon Law PresumptionFirst Amendment PresumptionFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
References
43
Case No. ADJ9618682
Regular
Sep 24, 2015

SOLEDAD GARCIA vs. LYONS MAGNUS, INC., AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The applicant sought removal from a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order that required her to treat within the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN). She argued the MPN lacked sufficient physiatrists, violating access standards, and sought to treat outside it. However, the Board denied removal, finding the applicant presented no evidence to support her claim that the MPN failed access standards or caused denial of treatment. The applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and a lack of evidence was the primary impediment to her case.

Petition for RemovalMedical Provider Network (MPN)Access StandardsPrimary Treating Physician (PTP)PhysiatristPain ManagementPetition DenialFindings of Fact and Order (F&O)Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Rule 9767.5
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deleon v. New York City Sanitation Department

DeGrasse, J., dissents from the majority's premise, arguing that the reckless disregard standard of care set forth under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) applies to the case. The case involves a 2010 collision between a plaintiff's vehicle and a mechanical street sweeper operated by defendant Robert P. Falcaro, a city sanitation worker. The dissent asserts that Rules of the City of New York (34 RCNY) § 4-02 (d) (1) (iv) incorporated this standard for highway workers, a category Falcaro falls under. It refutes the majority's interpretation of 34 RCNY § 4-02 (d) (1) (iii), stating it provides no standard of care and thus does not contradict the application of the reckless disregard standard. The dissenting judge concludes that summary judgment was properly granted by the court below, as there was no evidence of Falcaro's intentional conduct committed in disregard of a known or obvious risk of highly probable harm, and would affirm the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendants’ cross motion.

Reckless disregardVehicle and Traffic LawStreet sweeperHighway workerSummary judgmentMunicipal lawNew York City RulesStandard of careDissentCollision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Standard Dye & Finishing Co.

Plaintiff Textile Workers Pension Fund sued Defendant Standard Dye & Finishing Co., Inc. to collect withdrawal assessments under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA). Standard Dye ceased its primary business operations in June 1980, prior to the MPPAA's effective date of September 26, 1980, but retained a few employees for clean-up and dismantling work through October 1980, for whom pension contributions were made. The core legal issue is whether Standard Dye "completely withdrew" from the pension plan before September 26, 1980, which would eliminate liability due to the Tax Reform Act of 1984. The Court analyzed the meaning of "permanently ceases all covered operations" under 29 U.S.C. § 1383(a), considering similar precedents. The Court found that the retention of a skeleton crew for liquidation activities did not prevent a complete cessation of covered operations. Therefore, Standard Dye effected a complete withdrawal prior to the MPPAA's effective date.

Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments ActWithdrawal LiabilityPension PlanComplete WithdrawalCovered OperationsTax Reform Act of 1984Retroactive ApplicationSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,439 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