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. ADJ2886265 (SRO 0100345) ADJ578550 (SRO 0141469)
Regular
Jun 24, 2010

JOSE ALBERTO MARTINEZ vs. AMY'S KITCHEN and CIGA, adjusted by Intercare for Paula Insurance, now in liquidation

This case involves applicant Jose Alberto Martinez's petitions for reconsideration of prior WCAB decisions concerning industrial injuries to his back sustained in 1997 and cumulatively through 2002, against Amy's Kitchen and various insurers. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify apportionment of permanent disability, finding 56% permanent disability for the 1997 injury attributable to CIGA and 5% for the cumulative trauma injury against Majestic Insurance. The Board also corrected a clerical error regarding the duration of temporary disability indemnity.

CIGAPaula InsuranceIntercareliquidationproduction line workerindustrial injuryback injurynew and further disabilitypermanent disabilityapportionment
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02070 [170 AD3d 967]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2019

Gomez v. Kitchen & Bath by Linda Burkhardt, Inc.

The plaintiff, a painter, sustained personal injuries when a defective A-frame ladder, provided by his supervisor, collapsed, causing him to fall. He commenced an action against the general contractor, Kitchen & Bath by Linda Burkhardt, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability, prompting the defendant's appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff's deposition testimony established a prima facie case of a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation. Furthermore, the court determined that the hospital records submitted by the defendant to oppose summary judgment were inadmissible hearsay, as they were not attributed to the plaintiff and were not pertinent to his diagnosis or treatment.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentGeneral Contractor LiabilityDefective EquipmentHearsay EvidenceBusiness Records ExceptionAppellate ReviewWorker Safety
References
17
Case No. ADJ3302147 (SRO 0139460)
Regular
Oct 19, 2009

LIDIA CHAVEZ-ESPARZA vs. AMY'S KITCHEN, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The WCAB granted defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding EDD's lien, reducing defendant's liability for applicant's permanent disability award by the amount of EDD's overlapping benefits. The WCAB affirmed the findings regarding applicant's cumulative trauma injury.

Cumulative traumaHypertensionDiabetesGastrointestinal problemsBilateral handsBilateral kneesFood processorEmployment Development DepartmentEDD lienOverlapping payments
References
4
Case No. ADJ3302147
Regular
Dec 09, 2013

LIDIA CHAVEZ-ESPARZA vs. AMY'S KITCHEN, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

In this case, the defendant sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order imposing a 25% penalty for unreasonably delaying permanent disability payments. The WCAB granted reconsideration, finding that the applicant received the full amount of permanent disability benefits awarded. The Board noted that advances made under a dismissed specific injury claim were not an unreasonable delay for the cumulative trauma injury claim, especially given a stipulation that the applicant received the full owed amount. Therefore, the penalty and associated attorney fee were rescinded.

Petition for ReconsiderationPermanent Disability BenefitsUnreasonable DelayPenaltyLabor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5814.5Cumulative Trauma InjurySpecific InjuryStipulated AwardBenefit Printout
References
0
Case No. ADJ14263093
Regular
Apr 12, 2023

CECILIA OJEDA vs. AMY'S KITCHEN, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer: The applicant claimed cumulative injury to her neck, bilateral wrists, shoulders, and upper extremities, which the employer initially denied for all body parts except the neck. The WCJ found injury to all claimed body parts, relying on treating physicians' reports, and found the QME's reports unsubstantial due to inconsistencies and admissions of uncertainty during deposition. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the QME's opinion was substantial evidence regarding injured body parts and permanent disability. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the QME's testimony was too speculative and contradictory to constitute substantial evidence for the disputed body parts.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardOrthopedic Qualified Medical Examiner (QME)Substantial EvidenceCumulative InjuryBilateral WristsBilateral ShouldersBilateral Upper ExtremitiesCervical Radiculopathy
References
3
Case No. ADJ6836483
Regular
Nov 16, 2009

ZACHARY STEPHENSON vs. ATHERTON APPLIANCE & KITCHENS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Petition for Reconsideration is denied based on the WCJ's report, which is adopted and incorporated. The WCJ's credibility finding is given significant weight.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardInjury AOE-COECredibility of WitnessEmployee Report of InjuryAdmissibility of EvidenceDue ProcessWCJ ReportSubstantial EvidenceMechanism of Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ578550
Regular
Nov 19, 2010

JOSE ALBERTO MARTINEZ vs. AMY'S KITCHEN and CIGA, Intercare, Paula Insurance

This case involves a clerical error in a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order. The Board issued an order correcting its November 17, 2010 Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Reconsideration. Specifically, the word "not" was omitted on page 2, line 21, affecting the interpretation of Labor Code section 5804. The correction clarifies that the cited section does not bar the Board from amending a WCJ's decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOrder Correcting Clerical ErrorPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order Dismissing PetitionDecision After ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5804InterlineationsCIGAPaula InsuranceMajestic Insurance Company
References
0
Case No. ADJ7283860
Regular
Oct 12, 2016

AMY ADAMS vs. TROIKA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Amy Adams' Petition for Reconsideration, finding the WCJ's decision was not a "final" order as it only addressed an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary issue. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, stating Adams failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only in limited circumstances. Therefore, the Board upheld the WCJ's decision by dismissing and denying the petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory Procedural DecisionEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valle v. Gordon Chen's Kitchen LLC

The plaintiffs, Alejandro Valle and Edgar Cid, sued Gordon Chen’s Kitchen, LLC, Mac-War Restaurant Corporation, and Allan Wartski for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The court found that the defendants failed to properly inform the employees about the tip credit, making them liable for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and also for "spread of hours" pay under NYLL. While some claims regarding NYLL notices were denied, the court ruled that plaintiffs are entitled to judgment for the FLSA and NYLL violations, including liquidated damages for certain periods. The exact amount of damages is to be calculated by the parties.

Unpaid WagesFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawTip CreditMinimum WageOvertime WagesSpread of Hours PayLabor DisputesWage and HourRestaurant Industry
References
33
Case No. ADJ12171548
Regular
Apr 21, 2023

AMY HEYMAN vs. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the prior findings and order in this case concerning Amy Heyman's claim against AT&T Mobility Services. The WCAB determined it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the necessity of home health care because the Utilization Review (UR) determination for the request was timely. The Board found the UR decision was issued within the statutory timeframe based on the received date of the request. Therefore, disputes regarding the medical necessity of the home health care must be resolved through Independent Medical Review (IMR).

Utilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewFindings of Fact and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalHome Health CareRequest for AuthorizationTimelinessMedical NecessityJurisdiction
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 92 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