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. ADJ8411218
Regular
Jul 07, 2014

Rafael Becerra vs. PV MART dba BUY LOW MARKET, INC., EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE CO., KEYANOOSH GHAMARI dba CODE 3 SECURITY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund's petition for reconsideration. Applicant's petition was granted to amend the original Findings and Order. The Board found that PV Mart dba Buy Low Market, Inc. was not a special employer of the applicant, Rafael Becerra. Consequently, PV Mart and its insurer were dismissed as party defendants, and the applicant was deemed an employee of Keyanoosh Ghamari dba Code 3 Security at the time of injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundSpecial Employment RelationshipGeneral EmploymentBorrowing EmployerLending EmployerRight to ControlCredibility DeterminationBuy Low MarketCode 3 Security
References
8
Case No. WCB Case No. G069 6605
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2017

The Matter of the Claim of Kanye Khalid Green v. Dutchess County BOCES

This case involves Angel Vazquez, the applicant, and New York City Transit Authority, the employer, with the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance as the Special Funds Conservation Committee. The issue at hand is the employer's request for reimbursement from the Special Funds Conservation Committee under Workers' Compensation Law §15(8)(d). The Board Panel found that the employer failed to demonstrate a good faith effort to resolve the claim prior to the hearing, specifically regarding a claim for an accidental injury. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Law Judge, which denied the employer's request for reimbursement, was affirmed. The Board also noted that the employer's application for review did not comply with the requirements of 12 NYCRR 300.13(b)(1).

Workers' Compensation Law §15(8)(d)Special Funds Conservation CommitteeReimbursement claimGood faith effortAccidental injuryBoard Panel decisionAffirmation of WCJ decision12 NYCRR 300.13(b)(1)Pre-hearing resolutionEmployer liability
References
6
Case No. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Case No. ADJ8365866
Regular
May 02, 2014

CESAR MARTIN vs. STUDIO CHAMELEON LLC, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the finding that the applicant's injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. The Board found the applicant's stop at a friend's house to retrieve a phone charger benefited the employer by enabling continued communication. Additionally, the auto accident occurred after the applicant left his friend's house and was en route back to the employer's premises on a normal route, thus concluding any deviation. The Board also clarified the legal distinction between "scope of employment" (a tort concept) and "course of employment" (a workers' compensation term of art).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationdeniedcourse of employmentscope of employmentmotor vehicle accidentmaterial deviationemployer's instructionsapplicant's benefitpersonal comfort
References
5
Case No. ADJ11795460
Regular
Oct 17, 2019

GABRIEL MORA vs. SB ENTERTAINMENT VENTURES INC. dba 340 RESTAURANT AND NIGHTCLUB, EMPLOYERS PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant alleges injury during an altercation at work. The employer, SB Entertainment Ventures Inc., denied the claim, asserting the applicant was the initial aggressor. The applicant sought a video of the incident, which the employer failed to produce despite a subpoena and court order. The WCJ issued a finding that the video showed the applicant was not the initial aggressor, implying the employer's non-production led to this conclusion. The Appeals Board treated the employer's petition as a request for reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's finding, and remanded the case. This action was taken because the prior hearing lacked sufficient admitted evidence to support the finding, and due process requires a proper evidentiary record before determining such a threshold issue as initial aggressor status.

WCABRemoval PetitionReconsiderationInitial AggressorDue ProcessSubpoena Duces TecumAdverse InferenceWillful SuppressionBad Faith ActionsSanctions
References
13
Case No. 532415
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

In the Matter of the Claim of Giovani Garcia

Claimant, a laborer, was bitten by a snake while working for an uninsured employer. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim for a work-related injury to claimant's left hand and left wrist, authorized medical treatment, and assessed a penalty against the employer for being uninsured. The employer appealed the WCLJ's decision to the Workers' Compensation Board, but the Board denied the application for review due to the employer's failure to provide a complete response to a required question on the application form (RB-89). Specifically, the employer's response did not provide the date on which an objection or exception was interposed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board has the discretion to deny review when a party, represented by counsel, fails to comply with its regulations regarding application requirements.

Workers' CompensationUninsured EmployerAdministrative ReviewBoard RegulationsForm RB-89Objection DateAppellate DivisionCompliancePenalty AssessmentWork-Related Injury
References
14
Case No. ADJ7870189
Regular
Nov 09, 2018

ALDO RODRIGUEZ vs. ALADDIN CUSTOM POOLS, INC., IMPERIUM, administered by ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS, SERGIO CHIQUETE, JUANA CHIQUETE, FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE c/o FARMERS INSURANCE, SILVERIO QUIRARTE, uninsured, UNINSURED EMPLOYER BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case clarifies employer liability for an injured worker in the context of unlicensed contractors. The Appeals Board found applicant Aldo Rodriguez was solely employed by Silverio Quirarte, an unlicensed contractor, for work performed on May 15, 2010. Applicant did not meet the hours threshold to be considered an employee of the homeowners (Chiquetes) under Labor Code Section 3352(a)(8), thus excluding them as employers. Aladdin Custom Pools was also dismissed as applicant had no direct employment or remuneration from them.

Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundUEBTFemployer identityindustrial injuryright eye injuryleft eye injurypsyche injuryjackhammer accidentAladdin Custom PoolsSilverio Quirarte
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1991

Krajas v. Chevy Pontiac Canada Group

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a self-insured employer's responsibility for a claim. The Board exercised its continuing jurisdiction, despite the case being previously closed. A letter from the claimant’s attorney, submitted after the closing date, was deemed a valid application for compensation, alerting the employer to ongoing proceedings. The Board concluded that this application prevented the employer from being relieved of responsibility under Workers’ Compensation Law §25-a. The application was also found to be filed within the stipulated time limits. The court affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationContinuing JurisdictionReduced Earnings AwardApplication for CompensationSelf-Insured EmployerStatutory Time LimitsBoard DecisionAppealReopened CasesClaimant Rights
References
3
Case No. ADJ1439784 (LBO 0356898)
Regular
Apr 22, 2010

JAVIER HERNANDEZ (FLORES) vs. LOS ANGELES DRUM & BARRELL, INC., LAWRENCE BRADLEY KAPLAN, SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDER, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for a truck driver injured on March 14, 2003, resulting in a 47% permanent disability award. The employer, Los Angeles Drum & Barrell, Inc., an uninsured entity, sought reconsideration, arguing improper joinder due to lack of service. The applicant also sought reconsideration to clarify that the employer should only receive credit for permanent disability advances, not "other benefits." The Board dismissed the employer's petition for failure to serve the applicant and granted the applicant's petition to amend the award. The final order clarifies that the employer is entitled to credit only for specified permanent disability advances.

WCABReconsiderationAmended Findings and AwardTruck DriverWillfully UninsuredRight Shoulder InjuryNeck InjuryPermanent DisabilityTemporary Disability OverpaymentPermanent Disability Advance
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

the Claim of Brigandi v. Town & Country Linoleum & Carpet

This case involves an appeal by an employer and its compensation carrier against decisions made by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The decedent, a carpet layer, died from cardiac arrest during work, with an autopsy revealing underlying coronary atherosclerotic disease. His widow was awarded death benefits. The employer’s carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8), asserting a preexisting permanent physical impairment. However, the Board determined that there was no evidence that the decedent’s heart condition hindered his job potential before his death, thus releasing the Special Disability Fund from liability and holding the compensation carrier responsible. The employer's subsequent application for reconsideration was denied by the Board, leading to these appeals. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the Board rationally found no proof that the decedent's heart disease impaired his job potential, a necessary condition for reimbursement under WCL § 15 (8) (d).

Special Disability FundPreexisting Permanent ImpairmentCardiac ArrestCoronary Atherosclerotic DiseaseDeath Benefits ClaimEmployer ReimbursementCarrier LiabilityBoard Decision ReviewAppellate AffirmationMedical Evidence Interpretation
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 20,180 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