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. 2015 NY Slip Op 08350
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2015

Matter of Edubilio Andre R. (Andre R.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Family Court's orders of fact-finding and disposition, which determined that the respondent father, Andre R., permanently neglected his children. The Family Court had properly excused the petitioner agency, Cardinal McCloskey Community Services, from its duty to exercise diligent efforts for reunification. This decision was based on the father's felony conviction for sexual abuse, prior findings of sexual abuse against his daughter and medical neglect of his son, and expert testimony indicating that reunification would be traumatic for the children. The court noted the father's failure to participate in services or sexual offender programs while incarcerated. Additionally, appeals from the dispositional portions of the orders were dismissed due to the father's default at the hearings.

Child NeglectPermanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationSexual AbuseMedical NeglectDiligent Efforts ExcuseFamily Court AppealAppellate Division First DepartmentBest Interests of the ChildDefault at Dispositional Hearing
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06886
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2022

Castillo v. TRM Contr. 626, LLC

The plaintiff, Noel Castillo, was injured after falling from an A-frame ladder while preparing a window for painting. He testified that the six- to eight-foot-tall ladder was in poor condition and had to be leaned against a wall in a closed position due to heavy boxes obstructing the workspace. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted Castillo's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, citing that a statutory violation is established when a ladder shifts, slips, or collapses, especially when workplace conditions prevent proper securement. The court found that prior cases involving electrical shocks were distinguishable, reaffirming liability for gravity-related falls from inadequately secured ladders.

Ladder AccidentConstruction SafetyWorkplace HazardSummary Judgment GrantedAppellate AffirmationLabor Law ComplianceGravity-Related AccidentUnsafe EquipmentPersonal Injury ClaimContractor Liability
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04925 [151 AD3d 1310]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2017

Matter of Castillo v. Brown

Christina Castillo, a live-in domestic worker, sustained a hand injury in May 2012 and filed for workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established her case, awarded benefits, and assessed Frida and Kenneth Brown (the employers) a penalty of $86,000 for failing to maintain workers' compensation coverage in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 50 and § 26-a (2) (b). A panel of the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision and later denied the employers' request for reconsideration. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, finding no reason to disturb the penalty assessment and ruling that the employers' constitutional challenge was unpreserved. The court also found that the Board did not abuse its discretion or act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the employers' request for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation PenaltyEmployer Non-ComplianceDomestic Worker InjuryAppellate AffirmanceWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewJudicial DiscretionStatutory Penalty CalculationUnpreserved Constitutional ClaimSufficiency of EvidenceAdministrative Decision
References
7
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01738 [192 AD3d 953]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2021

Andres v. North 10 Project, LLC

The plaintiff, Mieczyslaw Andres, commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained when an electrical panel box he was removing fell and struck him. He appealed from an order denying his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against defendants North 10 Project, LLC, and HSD Construction, LLC. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the electrical panel box was an object requiring securing under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary Judgment MotionFalling Object DoctrineAppellate DivisionLiabilityConstruction Site SafetyStatutory InterpretationWorkers' RightsPremises Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Melissa Castillo brought claims of sex discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge against Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., William Rappaport, and Herbie Gonzalez under Title VII. Castillo sought to intervene in the EEOC's action and assert additional state and city claims, while the defendant moved to compel arbitration of Castillo's claims based on an employment arbitration agreement. The court granted Castillo's motion to intervene and permitted her state and local claims to proceed under supplemental jurisdiction. The court also granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration for all of Castillo's claims, determining that the arbitration agreement was an employer-promulgated plan and the associated costs would not be prohibitively expensive. The EEOC's action was not stayed, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement, but Castillo's individual proceedings were stayed pending arbitration.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationConstructive DischargeTitle VIIArbitration AgreementInterventionEmployment DiscriminationFederal Arbitration ActSupplemental JurisdictionEEOC Enforcement Action
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castillo v. Casado (In Re Casado)

Herman and Janet Castillo, the Plaintiffs, initiated an adversary proceeding to prevent the discharge of the Debtor, Aníbal Casado, M.D., under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A). They alleged that the Debtor made false statements in his bankruptcy schedules by misrepresenting accounts receivable, failing to list household goods, and omitting several pending lawsuits. The Court found compelling evidence that the Debtor made material false oaths and exhibited a pattern of deceit, primarily to avoid paying the Castillos' judgment. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Debtor knowingly made false statements and, therefore, his discharge will be denied.

Bankruptcy FraudFalse OathsDischarge DenialAccounts Receivable UnderstatementUndisclosed AssetsUndisclosed LawsuitsReckless IndifferenceChapter 7 BankruptcyCreditor RightsMedical Malpractice Judgment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castillo v. Schriro

Petitioner Castillo, a correction officer and domestic violence victim, challenged her employment termination by the New York City Department of Correction via an Article 78 proceeding. The court found that the respondents acted in bad faith and discriminated against her based on a temporary disability and her status as a domestic violence victim, violating the New York City Human Rights Law. Respondents failed to provide reasonable accommodations or follow internal policies for domestic violence victims. The petition was granted, her termination annulled, and she was ordered reinstated with back pay and benefits, with the case remanded for a lesser penalty.

Domestic ViolenceEmployment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationProbationary EmployeeArticle 78 ProceedingReasonable AccommodationBad FaithNew York City Human Rights LawAWOLTermination
References
30
Case No. ADJ362322 (VNO 0554826)
Regular
Aug 20, 2009

ANDRE TEMURIAN vs. CITY OF PASADENA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record in this case regarding applicant Andre Temurian's claim for a psychiatric injury. The initial decision denied the claim, finding that actual employment events were not the predominant cause of the injury, partly due to a lack of substantial medical evidence addressing a significant remodeling dispute applicant was involved in. The Board found the medical evidence critically flawed as it did not adequately explore the overlap between this dispute and the alleged workplace harassment by applicant's supervisor. Therefore, the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to obtain a supplemental medical opinion and a new decision.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardAndre TemurianCity of Pasadenapsychiatric injurycumulative periodsupervisor harassmentactual events of employmentpredominant causemedical reportssubstantial evidence
References
0
Case No. ADJ4423738 (OAK 0328993)
Regular
Sep 16, 2013

ANDRE BRADFORD vs. LABOR READY; ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Andre Bradford's petition for reconsideration because it was not timely filed. A petition for reconsideration can only be filed from a final order that determines substantive rights or liabilities. Interlocutory orders, such as those related to evidence, discovery, or trial setting, are not final and thus not subject to reconsideration. Bradford's petition was therefore dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionNon-FinalAggrieved PartyDisqualification
References
9
Case No. ADJ10082077
Regular
Feb 22, 2016

SANDRA CASTILLO vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Sandra Castillo's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a "final" order, as it only resolved an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The WCAB also denied her Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that reconsideration would not adequately address. Therefore, both the reconsideration and removal requests were rejected. The WCAB adopted the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge in its decision.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural DecisionsEvidentiary Decisions
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 99 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