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. 2017-278 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2019

Flores v. A & A Family Beverage, Inc.

The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed an order denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff Carlos Flores sought recovery for injuries sustained while unloading a truck owned by A & A Family Beverage, Inc. Defendants argued that Flores's sole remedy was workers' compensation benefits. The Civil Court found triable issues of fact regarding whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Flores and A & A, which would determine if workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. The appellate court concurred, noting that the nature and extent of A & A's control over Flores needed to be determined by the trier of fact, and also clarified that Flores was not an employee of A & A under Workers' Compensation Law § 2 (4) as he was not a driver.

workers' compensationemployer-employee disputesummary judgment denialappellate reviewlabor lawpersonal injury claimexclusive remedytrucking accidentfactual disputerespondent vs appellant
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cady v. Andrews

Gerald A. Cady, a Broome County Deputy Sheriff, suffered injuries in a patrol car accident in 1979. He and his wife sued Sheriff Andrews and the County of Broome for negligence in vehicle maintenance. Defendants moved for summary judgment, citing the Workers' Compensation Law and constitutional immunity for the county. The court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint against the county due to constitutional immunity and the inapplicability of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 to police vehicles. The action against Sheriff Andrews was also dismissed, with the court finding the Workers' Compensation Law to be a bar given the deputy's effective joint employment.

Workers' CompensationGovernmental ImmunityVicarious LiabilitySheriff's DepartmentPolice VehiclesVehicle and Traffic LawConstitutional LawEmployment StatusSummary Judgment
References
14
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02303
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2024

Flores v. Fort Green Homes, LLC

The plaintiff, Carlos Lemus Flores, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, regarding his personal injury claim against Fort Green Homes, LLC. Flores alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) after a fire extinguisher fell and struck him at a construction site while he was backfilling a foundation. The Supreme Court denied Flores's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the causes of action under both Labor Law sections. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the falling fire extinguisher was not a material being hoisted or a load requiring securing under Labor Law § 240 (1), and that Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a) (1) was inapplicable because the incident area was not normally exposed to falling objects.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentFalling ObjectLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationNegligenceSafety DevicesElevation-Related Risk
References
14
Case No. 0140/14, 17508, 17509, 2016-1358, 2016-1408, 2017-1194, 2017-1195
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2023

People v. Flores

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the lower court's denial of defendants Felix Ojeda Flores and Orlando Carrera's CPL 440.10 motions to vacate their judgments of conviction for a criminal sexual act, assault, and weapon possession. The court found that the prosecution committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose evidence that the Bronx District Attorney's Office was assisting the complainant in obtaining a U visa. This undisclosed evidence was deemed material impeachment evidence that could have influenced the jury's assessment of the complainant's credibility, which was central to the conviction. Consequently, the judgments were vacated, and the indictments were dismissed.

Brady violationU visaImpeachment evidenceCredibility of witnessDue processSuppressed evidenceCPL 440.10 motionVacated judgmentIndictment dismissalCriminal sexual act
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Amigon

Plaintiff Maria Flores sued her former employer, La Flor Bakery, for unpaid overtime wages under federal and state laws. During discovery, La Flor Bakery requested Flores' immigration documents, social security number, and passports, arguing this information was relevant to a defense based on the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) and the Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. Supreme Court decision, which it contended would preclude back pay for undocumented aliens. Flores filed a motion for a protective order, asserting that her immigration status was irrelevant to her Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims and that disclosing such information would have an intimidating effect. The court, distinguishing Hoffman Plastic as applying to back pay for work not performed, found Flores' immigration status irrelevant to her claims for wages for work already completed. Consequently, the court granted Flores' motion for a protective order, concluding that the potential prejudice of disclosing her immigration status significantly outweighed any minimal probative value for the defense.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSAImmigration Reform and Control ActIRCAundocumented workersback payovertime wagesprotective orderdiscoveryimmigration status
References
10
Case No. CV-23-2014
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Andrew DeWolf

Claimant, Andrew P. DeWolf, an emergency medical technician for Wayne County, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging binaural hearing loss due to prolonged workplace noise exposure. While the Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that the claimant failed to provide competent medical evidence to establish a causally-related occupational disease. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding the medical opinions from two otolaryngologists to be speculative due to insufficient data on noise levels, duration of exposure, and the claimant's recreational hunting history. The court also dismissed the claimant's arguments regarding jurisdiction and due process.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseHearing LossCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewEMTWorkplace Noise ExposureSpeculative Medical OpinionDue Process
References
13
Case No. CV-23-0790
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Edith Flores

Edith Flores filed a workers' compensation death benefits claim for her deceased spouse, Dimas Hernandez, a cemetery worker who died in April 2020 from cardiopulmonary arrest due to COVID-19. The employer, Wellwood Cemetery Assoc. Inc., and its carrier controverted the claim, arguing the death was not employment-related. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, which the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. The carrier appealed to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported that the decedent contracted COVID-19 in the course of his employment, citing claimant's testimony about his work exposure to COVID-19 victims, lack of PPE, a coworker's illness, and his belief he got sick at work, corroborated by medical documentation.

COVID-19Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsCausally-Related DeathEmployment ExposureSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewContraction of IllnessCemetery WorkerCardiopulmonary Arrest
References
10
Case No. 534208
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Paullan Flores

Jimmy Paullan Flores, a construction laborer, appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied his request to amend his claim to include left shoulder and bilateral knee injuries and denied awards related to back surgery. Initially, his claim for a work-related injury was established only for a back scratch. The Board found the claimant's testimony regarding the accident and the extent of his injuries not credible, concluding there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a causal relationship between the alleged additional injuries and the employment accident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its credibility determinations and finding its findings supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationCredibility AssessmentCausal RelationshipIndependent Medical ExaminationBack InjuryShoulder InjuryKnee InjuryAccident ClaimsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02042 [215 AD3d 1146]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2023

Matter of Flores v. Millennium Servs., LLC

Claimant Jimmy Paullan Flores sought to amend his workers' compensation claim to include left shoulder and bilateral knee injuries and to receive awards for a causally-related back surgery, after his initial claim was established only for a back scratch. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially granted the amendment and awarded benefits, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding the claimant's testimony regarding the accident lacked credibility and that there was insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the alleged additional injuries and the employment accident. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its role as the sole arbiter of witness credibility and finding that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence, including contradictory testimony from a coworker and project manager.

Workers' CompensationClaim AmendmentCausal RelationshipCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBack InjuryKnee InjuryShoulder InjuryIndependent Medical Examination
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04901 [208 AD3d 560]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2022

Flores v. Crescent Beach Club, LLC

Plaintiff Robert Flores sustained injuries while demolishing a wooden pergola and subsequently filed two personal injury actions, later consolidated, against Crescent Beach Club, LLC and Lad Creative, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Lad Creative, Inc. appealed a Supreme Court order denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order. It found that Lad Creative failed to establish, prima facie, that it was not a general contractor or agent under Labor Law § 240 (1), thus affirming the denial of summary judgment for that specific claim. However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) causes of action, concluding that Lad Creative had shown the inapplicability of Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (c) for the § 241 (6) claim and that it lacked authority to supervise or control the work for the common-law negligence and § 200 claims.

Personal InjuryDemolition AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor LiabilityWorkplace SafetyAppellate Review
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 263 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