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

Garcia v. Astrue

This case involves Alfonso Garcia (Plaintiff) seeking Social Security benefits against Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue (Defendant). The District Court adopted the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini, which recommended denying the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting the Plaintiff's motion. The case is remanded to the Commission for further proceedings. The Magistrate Judge found the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) committed several errors, including failing to adequately evaluate the opinions of treating physicians and a consultative examiner, not properly assessing a treating nurse practitioner's opinion, and failing to consider the impact of Plaintiff's obesity on his limitations. The District Court affirmed these findings, highlighting the need for further record development and proper assessment of medical evidence and the plaintiff's condition, including obesity.

Social Security benefitsdisability claimRFC assessmenttreating physician's opinionconsultative examinerobesity impactALJ errorsremand orderjudgment on pleadingsevidentiary record
References
47
Case No. 533993
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Francisca Garcia (Garcia (dec'd), Miguel)

Claimant Francisca Garcia appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision disallowing her claim for death benefits. Her spouse, Miguel Garcia, a World Trade Center volunteer, died in 2016 from conditions established in his prior workers' compensation claim. Garcia filed for death benefits in 2020, which the Board ruled untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28. The Board also determined that Workers' Compensation Law Article 8-A did not apply to a death benefits claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that Article 8-A's exception to the two-year filing rule applied to the participant's disablement claim, not to a separate death benefits claim filed by a non-participant, thus the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 28. A dissenting opinion argued that Workers' Compensation Law § 163, by mentioning "injury or death," indicated Article 8-A's applicability to death benefits, suggesting the matter be remitted to address causation and timely filing.

Death Benefits ClaimWorld Trade Center VolunteerWorkers' Compensation Law § 28TimelinessStatutory InterpretationArticle 8-ALatent ConditionsPosttraumatic Stress DisorderGastroesophageal Reflux DiseaseObstructive Sleep Apnea
References
12
Case No. 93
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Francisca Garcia

Francisca Garcia, spouse of deceased volunteer Miguel Garcia, filed a death benefits claim more than two years after his death in July 2016. Miguel Garcia had received lifetime benefits for health conditions contracted while volunteering in the 9/11 World Trade Center recovery efforts. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) and Appellate Division disallowed the claim as untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, which sets a two-year statute of limitations for death benefits. The central legal question was whether Workers' Compensation Law § 168, which extends filing periods for 'participants' in WTC recovery, applies to claims by survivors. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that § 168's language, referring explicitly to 'a claim by a participant,' does not extend to claims made by beneficiaries, thus the claim remains barred by § 28.

Death Benefits ClaimWTC Volunteer9/11 Recovery WorkersStatute of Limitations ExtensionWorkers' Compensation Law Article 8-ASurvivor's Claim TimelinessParticipant DefinitionLegislative Intent InterpretationUntimely Filing DisallowanceAppellate Division Affirmation
References
3
Case No. 03-1956
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. Scoppetta

Plaintiff Michele Garcia, a member of a subclass in Nicholson v. Williams, sued officials and employees of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the City of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution. She alleged constitutional violations stemming from child protective proceedings initiated against her maliciously and without probable cause. Defendants moved to dismiss based on res judicata or, alternatively, qualified immunity for individual defendants. The court ruled that Garcia's malicious prosecution claim was not precluded by her prior suit (Garcia I) because the operative facts giving rise to the claim arose after Garcia I was filed and terminated. However, the court granted qualified immunity to the individual defendants, concluding that the law regarding the definition of a 'neglected child' and the justification for initiating neglect proceedings was not clearly established at the time of their actions, especially given pending certified questions to the New York Court of Appeals in Nicholson v. Scoppetta. The City's motion to dismiss was denied, and the court also denied certification for interlocutory appeal for both decisions.

Child Protective ProceedingsMalicious ProsecutionRes JudicataQualified ImmunityFederal Civil RightsDue ProcessFamily Court ActDomestic ViolenceChild NeglectSecond Circuit
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. Petrakis

This case concerns an appeal regarding a personal injury claim filed by Roberto Garcia and his wife against Peter Petrakis, the owner of a house where Garcia was injured in a fall. Initially, Petrakis was granted summary judgment, but this was later vacated upon renewal. The Appellate Division reversed the decision to vacate, thereby reinstating summary judgment in favor of Petrakis. The court found that Petrakis, as a one- or two-family homeowner, did not direct or control Garcia's work and lacked actual or constructive notice of any unsafe condition, thus exempting him from liability under Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241, and common-law negligence.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor LawOwner LiabilityConstruction AccidentLadder FallNegligenceAppellate ReviewHomeowner ExemptionNew York State Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. J. C. Duggan, Inc.

Plaintiff Rafael Garcia, an employee of Capitol Knitting Mills Corp., suffered a herniated disk while assisting defendant J. C. Duggan, Inc., a moving company, with positioning a knitting machine. Garcia, whose role was to supervise equipment placement, allegedly helped move a machine at the request of Duggan's workers. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendant, ruling Garcia acted as a volunteer and his actions were unforeseeable. However, the appellate court modified this decision, denying summary judgment. The court found unresolved questions of fact regarding the defendant's duty of care, any potential breach, proximate cause, and whether Garcia was truly a volunteer given his employment context and the solicitation of his assistance.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentVolunteer DoctrineDuty of CareProximate CauseEmployment ScopeAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryHerniated DiscMoving Company Liability
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04540
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2021

Garcia v. Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P.

David Garcia, an employee of Temperature Systems, Inc. (TSI), sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder supplied by Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P. (Emerick) while working at one of Emerick's properties. Garcia sued Emerick alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence, prompting Emerick to file a third-party action against TSI for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied both Garcia's and Emerick's motions for summary judgment, and TSI's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted Garcia's cross-motion for discovery sanctions against Emerick for spoliation of evidence, determining that Garcia was entitled to a negative inference at trial due to the disposal of the ladder. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order in its entirety, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding whether Garcia was a recalcitrant worker and the sole proximate cause of his injuries, and whether the alleged contractual indemnification provision was enforceable.

Personal InjuryLabor LawElevation-related HazardsSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSpoliation of EvidenceNegative InferenceRecalcitrant WorkerProximate CauseSafe Place to Work
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. Henry Street Settlement

Lydia Garcia, an Hispanic female, was terminated from her employment at Henry Street Settlement after nearly 27 years. She filed a complaint alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Henry Street argued that her position was eliminated due to a reduction in force caused by a loss of funding. Garcia also claimed a hostile work environment due to a Spanish-speaking policy and discriminatory denial of a new position. The court granted Henry Street's motion for summary judgment, finding that Garcia failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, and that Henry Street provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her termination.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VII Civil Rights ActReduction in ForcePretext for DiscriminationPrima Facie CaseBurden-Shifting Framework
References
41
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03795 [239 AD3d 942]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2025

Garcia v. Fed LI, LLC

The injured plaintiff, Jose Garcia, and his wife, suing derivatively, initiated an action after Mr. Garcia fell from an unsecured extension ladder while working on a commercial property. The property was owned by Fed LI, LLC, GSM LI, LLC, ICA LI, LLC, and SAF LI, LLC, and leased by Multi Packaging Solutions, Inc., with Mr. Garcia employed by J.P.S. Electric Co., Inc. (JPS). The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which the Supreme Court denied. The Appellate Division reversed this part of the order, granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding that a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) was established and was a proximate cause of the injuries, as the defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices or rebut the prima facie showing of negligence. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision regarding contractual indemnification, ruling that JPS was not contractually obligated to indemnify the MPS entities, as a post-accident purchase order's general reference to 'Terms and Conditions' was insufficient to establish a retroactive indemnification agreement.

Ladder FallConstruction Site InjuryLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment MotionIndemnification AgreementContract InterpretationRetroactivityThird Party LiabilityAppellate DivisionSuffolk County
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 1996

County of Westchester v. Alfonso

The County of Westchester appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which denied its petition to vacate an arbitrator's award granting predetermination compensation benefits to Correction Officer Frank Alfonso and confirmed that portion of the award. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment. It found that the Supreme Court properly refused to vacate the arbitrator’s award. The court concluded there was a rational basis for the arbitrator's decision that Alfonso was entitled to benefits. Furthermore, the arbitrator's determination did not exceed his powers or violate public policy.

ArbitrationCompensation BenefitsPredeterminationConsent AwardPublic PolicyRational BasisAppellate ReviewCPLR 7511Vacate AwardConfirm Award
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 369 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