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. ADJ16913929
Regular
Oct 24, 2025

NIDYA GONZALEZ vs. SIZZLER USA ACQUISITION, INC., PREFERED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Nidya Gonzalez and defendant Sizzler USA Acquisition, Inc., insured by Preferred Employers Insurance Company, both sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) from February 27, 2025, which found applicant sustained a cumulative injury with 95% permanent disability. Defendant contended the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and post-termination defense, and that Dr. Rubanenko's reports lacked substantial medical evidence, while applicant contended a miscalculation in permanent disability. The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition, finding the claim was not barred and Dr. Rubanenko's reports constituted substantial medical evidence. The Board granted the applicant's petition, amending the F&A to set applicant's earnings at $1,272.03 per week, resulting in a temporary and permanent total disability rate of $848.20 per week, and increasing the permanent disability to 100% based on an age adjustment correction and the application of the Vigil decision regarding overlapping impairments.

Statute of LimitationsCumulative TraumaDate of InjuryPost-Termination DefenseSubstantial Medical EvidenceAMA GuidesPermanent Disability RatingPetition for ReconsiderationEarningsVocational Injury
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stratton v. DEPARTMENT FOR AGING CITY OF NEW YORK

Plaintiff Joyce Stratton sued the New York City Department for the Aging (DFTA) and Commissioner Prema Mathai-Davis for age discrimination and retaliation after her termination at age 61 and failure to be rehired. A jury found for Stratton, awarding $500,000 in damages, determining age was a factor and the non-rehire was retaliatory and willful. Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence, erroneous admission of statistical evidence, and excessive damages. Plaintiff cross-moved for front pay and restoration of benefits. The court denied defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law and new trial regarding statistical evidence. The motion for a new trial due to excessive damages was denied on condition that plaintiff accept a remittitur reducing the award from $500,000 to $373,886.23. Plaintiff's motion for front pay and benefits, totaling $378,000, was granted.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawJury VerdictPost-trial MotionsJudgment as a Matter of LawNew TrialRemittiturFront PayBack Pay
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halfond v. Legal Aid Soc. of City of New York

Plaintiffs Lawrence Halfond, Michael Richstone, and Peter Zullo, all supervisors at Legal Aid, were fired or demoted in January 1995 and subsequently filed an age discrimination lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Legal Aid sought summary judgment, asserting that the employment actions were necessitated by budget cuts. The court denied Legal Aid's motion, finding that the plaintiffs successfully established a prima facie case of age discrimination. This was supported by statistical evidence showing a significant disparity in the treatment of older versus younger supervisors, management comments suggesting a preference for younger employees, and a notable lack of clear, specific, and documented non-discriminatory reasons for the adverse actions from Legal Aid's committees.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)Summary Judgment MotionPrima Facie CaseDisparate TreatmentReduction in ForceStatistical EvidencePretextEmployer's BurdenExplanations for TerminationDocumentary Evidence
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Degale-Selier v. Preferred Management & Leasing Corp.

This legal excerpt examines the concept of dual employment, focusing on general and special employers under Workers’ Compensation Law. It reiterates that immunity extends to all employers when a plaintiff accepts workers’ compensation benefits, regardless of the corporate relationship between entities. The core issue revolves around defining a "special employee" and establishing this status as a matter of law. In the presented case, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants' motion for summary judgment, as they failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff was a special employee of Preferred Management & Leasing Corp. or that Preferred was an alter ego or joint venture with the plaintiff's employer, 21st Avenue Transportation Co., Inc. The decision emphasizes the factual nature of special employment status and the burden of proof on the moving party.

Dual EmploymentSpecial EmployeeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSummary JudgmentAlter EgoJoint VentureEmployer LiabilityCorporate EntitiesAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heagney v. European American Bank

Plaintiffs in this action allege that the defendant, European American Bank, discriminated against them based on age, violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The plaintiffs sought the court's authorization to proceed as an "opt-in" class action and to send notice to potential class members. The Court granted the motion, concluding that the case may proceed as an opt-in class suit, broadly defining the class to include employees whose employment was terminated through various mechanisms, not just early retirement, between June 1, 1984, and December 31, 1985. Furthermore, the Court determined that plaintiffs' counsel could provide written notice to other potential class members without requiring formal court authorization, citing recent Supreme Court rulings on attorney advertising and finding no legal precedent to prohibit such notice. The Court also found that the administrative filing requirements under the ADEA were satisfied for the class.

Age DiscriminationADEAClass ActionOpt-in ClassClass CertificationAttorney AdvertisingSolicitation of ClaimsEEOC Administrative ChargeFair Labor Standards ActEarly Retirement Incentive Program
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2002

Abdelaal v. Gindi

This case involves an appeal by Astra Construction Corp. and Preferred Mutual Insurance Company from an order granting summary judgment to City Construction Co. The underlying action was commenced by a plaintiff, an employee of City Construction Co., to recover damages for personal injuries after falling from a ladder. The plaintiff received Workers' Compensation benefits from City Construction Co.'s insurer. Astra, a contractor, and its insurer, Preferred Mutual, were brought into a third-party action by the property owners, and Astra subsequently cross-claimed against City Construction Co. for contribution and common-law indemnification. City Construction Co. moved for summary judgment, invoking the Workers' Compensation Law's affirmative defense, arguing that it was responsible for compensation benefits and the worker did not sustain a grave injury, nor was there a written indemnification agreement. The court found that City Construction Co. satisfied its burden for summary judgment, and Astra failed to present admissible evidence to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order, which granted summary judgment dismissing Astra's cross claims against City Construction Co., was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentCross ClaimsContributionIndemnificationPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityGrave InjuryAppellate DecisionKings County
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 1996

Tunstall v. Sol Seifer & Co.

A judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, dated March 7, 1996, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing an age discrimination complaint, was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The court found the action was properly dismissed due to the plaintiff's lack of proof that younger workers were hired for a position she was qualified for after her discharge. The plaintiff's request for further discovery was rejected because she had failed to compel compliance with discovery requests during the nearly 10 years the action had been pending, despite filing a note of issue and statement of readiness.

age discriminationsummary judgmentdiscoverydismissalemployment lawappellate reviewprocedural issueslack of proofNew YorkSupreme Court
References
1
Case No. MON 0311734
Regular
Feb 19, 2008

DANIEL MUNGUIA vs. PREFERRED PERSONNEL, NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that denied his claim for a back injury, finding his testimony regarding the cause of injury lacked credibility. The Board affirmed the decision, emphasizing that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof to establish a compensable injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment. Key to the decision were contradictions in the applicant's statements and the exclusion of a witness's testimony, which the Board found was properly excluded based on prior orders limiting the record.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationCredibilityBurden of ProofMedical RecordsLabor Code Section 3202Substantial EvidenceMedical TreatmentIndustrial InjuryWCJ
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02026
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Structure Tone, Inc. v. Merchants Preferred Ins. Co.

The Supreme Court properly denied Old Republic's motion for summary judgment due to unresolved questions of fact concerning whether the negligence of its named insured, Port Morris Tile & Marble Corp., was a proximate cause of an underlying accident, which would trigger indemnification by Old Republic. Evidence suggests factual disputes regarding Port Morris's responsibility for ensuring proper lighting and safety for its employees. The court also correctly granted Scottsdale's cross-motion for summary judgment. It found that Old Republic, as the primary insurer with an 'other insurance' provision, is not entitled to contribution from Scottsdale, whose policy contains an 'excess' clause, until Old Republic's coverage has been fully exhausted. The doctrine of collateral estoppel was deemed inapplicable because prior dismissals were not based on findings regarding Port Morris's negligence.

Insurance LawContractual IndemnificationDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyOther Insurance ClauseExcess ClauseSummary JudgmentProximate CauseNegligenceRespondeat Superior
References
7
Case No. ADJ8386118
Regular
Jan 04, 2013

RALPH GONZALES vs. PURELY CLEAN POOLS, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves an applicant, Ralph Gonzales, and defendants Purely Clean Pools and Preferred Employers Insurance. A petition for removal was filed by a party in this matter. However, the petitioner subsequently withdrew the petition for removal. Consequently, the Board has issued an order dismissing the petition, and no further action will be taken.

Petition for RemovalWithdrawn PetitionDismissed PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPurely Clean PoolsPreferred Employers InsuranceADJ8386118Oakland District OfficeAlfonso J. MoresiRonnie G. Caplane
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 757 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