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. ADJ9506148
Regular
Nov 05, 2019

RAUL GARCIA vs. RELIABLE RESOURCES, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of sanctions imposed on Citywide Scanning Services, Ani Balian, and Debbie Ketchens. The WCAB found that Balian and Ketchens lacked sufficient notice regarding the sanctions petition, thus reversing their personal liability. While Citywide's actions were deemed frivolous, the issue of attorney's fees for the defendant's representatives was deferred for further proceedings. The matter was returned to the trial level for these additional proceedings.

WCABCitywide Scanning ServicesAni BalianDebbie KetchensPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersWCJfrivolousbad faithsanctions
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2001

Peter v. Nisseli Realty Co.

The defendant, ANI Entertainment, Inc., appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff, Cyril Peter, sustained injuries when a ladder he was standing on during renovation work slid from beneath him, causing a fall. The plaintiffs successfully established a prima facie case for liability. ANI Entertainment, Inc. failed to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact concerning the injured plaintiff's conduct as a recalcitrant worker or the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Consequently, the Supreme Court's decision to grant the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was affirmed on appeal.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentLadder AccidentRenovation WorkConstruction AccidentAppellate DecisionLiabilityRecalcitrant WorkerProximate Cause
References
7
Case No. ADJ4230639 (VNO 0560535)
Regular
Sep 28, 2010

GARY FOSTER (Deceased) \n MANUEL VILLARREAL vs. RPI COATING, INC.\n SCIF INSURED FRESNO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a finding that Manuel Villarreal was a partial dependent of the deceased. The Board found the defendant's petition lacked evidentiary support and violated multiple procedural rules, including attaching unadmitted evidence and failing to properly cite the record. Consequently, the Board granted removal and indicated intent to impose sanctions on the defendant's counsel and insurer for bad-faith tactics and frivolous arguments.

Partial DependentPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813California Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10561Bad-faith actionsFrivolous tacticsMandatory Settlement ConferenceDue diligence
References
3
Case No. ADJ9627462
Regular
Dec 22, 2017

ARMEN BALIAN vs. AMERITECH BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC., NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding an engineer sustained 100% permanent disability due to work-related injuries including neurological and internal system damage. The defendant employer challenged the award, arguing insufficient evidence, improper reliance on the treating physician, and failure to address apportionment and post-discovery evidence. The Board affirmed the original decision regarding the injury and disability but deferred the issue of attorney's fees for further review at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardSubstantial EvidencePrimary Treating PhysicianApportionmentPresumption of CompensabilityCausationRetroactive Temporary Total DisabilityPost-Trial Brief
References
0
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04714 [140 AD3d 958]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2016

Matter of Klein v. Pereira

This case involves a proceeding initiated by Abraham Klein to confirm an arbitration award dated March 31, 2009. John S. Pereira, as Bankruptcy Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Christine Persaud, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the petition to confirm the award and denied his motion to vacate it. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, concluding that the appellant failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator had exceeded their power. The court noted that the arbitration clause was broad, granting the arbitrator authority to resolve 'any business dispute.'

arbitration awardCPLR article 75vacate arbitrationconfirm arbitrationarbitrator's powerappellate reviewKings Countybusiness disputebankruptcy trusteeagreement terms
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Simmons v. St. Lawrence County CDP, Inc.

This case clarifies the application of Workers' Compensation Law § 29 regarding an insurance carrier's right to offset a claimant's net recovery from a third-party tort-feasor against future compensation benefits. The decision affirms that this offset applies to earnings lost more than three years after the date of the accident, as these are not considered 'basic economic loss' and therefore not replaced by 'first party benefits' under no-fault insurance. The court explains that the compensation carrier's lien, while no longer 'inviolable' due to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (1-a), still attaches to 'any recovery' in a third-party action if the benefits in question were not in lieu of first-party benefits. The claimant's argument that the recovery solely represented pain, suffering, and permanent injuries, not lost wages, was rejected.

Workers' Compensation LawLienOffsetThird-Party RecoveryNo-Fault InsuranceBasic Economic LossFirst Party BenefitsLost WagesInsurance CarrierNew York Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Day v. Summit Security Services Inc.

The plaintiff, a security guard, brought a retaliation claim under Labor Law § 215 against his former employer, Summit Security Services Inc., and alleged co-employers, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and Kirk Leon. Plaintiff alleged termination resulted from a complaint about underpayment by a prior employer. HHC and Leon moved to dismiss, arguing no right of action, while Summit argued it was not the employer at the time of the protected activity. The court denied HHC and Leon's motion, concluding HHC could be considered 'any other person' under the expanded Wage Theft Prevention Act and was not exempt as a political subdivision. Summit's motion to dismiss was granted, as the court found Labor Law § 215 applied only to employers at the time of the protected activity, and the WTPA did not explicitly extend liability to subsequent employers.

RetaliationLabor Law Section 215Wage Theft Prevention ActWTPAEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationMotion to DismissPrevailing WageSecurity IndustryCo-employer Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between I. Miller & Sons, Inc., & United Office & Professional Workers

This case involves a motion to stay arbitration filed by petitioners, who are employees of I. Miller & Sons, Inc. The petitioners sought to stay an arbitration proceeding between their employer and a respondent union. The union and employer had an agreement requiring new employees to join the union after thirty days as a condition of employment. The petitioners refused to join the union, and the employer declined the union's request to discharge them, citing the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (Taft-Hartley Law). The petitioners argued the agreement was invalid under the Taft-Hartley Act and they had no obligation to arbitrate. The court denied the motion to stay arbitration, ruling that the petitioners, not being parties to the arbitration agreement, lacked standing to interfere with the proceeding. The court clarified that the phrase 'any party to the controversy' in the Civil Practice Act sections 1462 and 1462-a refers to parties to the arbitration agreement itself.

Arbitration AgreementStandingThird-Party RightsLabor LawUnion MembershipEmployer ObligationsContract InterpretationMotion to StayCivil Practice ActTaft-Hartley Act
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2003

Tempio v. City of Buffalo

Plaintiff, a civilian employee of the City of Buffalo Fire Department, initiated a personal injury action against the defendant, alleging liability under General Municipal Law § 205-a and respondeat superior. The plaintiff claimed injuries due to a fellow employee's negligence in violating the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, a decision which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The court clarified that the plaintiff falls within the class of persons covered by section 205-a, as it applies to 'any officer, member, agent or employee of any fire department injured... while in the discharge or performance... of any duty.' Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's acceptance of workers’ compensation benefits does not preclude this action, citing that section 205-a grants recovery rights 'in addition to any other right of action or recovery under any other provision of law.'

Personal InjuryMunicipal LawRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationVehicle and Traffic LawEmployee InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationFire Department
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Hunt

Nassau Educators Federal Credit Union (NEFCU) moved for relief from the automatic stay to set off outstanding loan balances against deposits in the co-debtors' share accounts, citing New York State Debtor and Creditor Law § 151. The co-debtors, William E. Hunt and Ernelle Hunt, argued that these funds, derived from their pensions, were exempt under New York City Administrative Code §§ 13-312 and 13-375 and NYDCL § 282, and that NEFCU's administrative freeze violated the automatic stay. The court denied NEFCU's motion, ruling that New York's exemption statutes for pension funds should be broadly interpreted to protect the proceeds from 'any other process,' including setoff, to prevent the exemptions from becoming a nullity. Consequently, the court ordered NEFCU to remove the administrative freeze and permit the co-debtors to access their funds.

Automatic StaySetoff RightsPension ExemptionsBankruptcy Chapter 7Debtor ProtectionStatutory InterpretationCreditor's ClaimsNew York State LawAdministrative FreezeEquitable Remedies
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 12 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