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. AHM 0125151
Regular
Jul 12, 2007

DANNY MEDINA vs. ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the applicant's petition. The dismissal was based on the applicant's petition for reconsideration being untimely, as the only filed petition was received by the WCAB on August 14, 2006, well after the deadline. Evidence, including proof of service and attorney declarations, confirmed that a timely objection to the original dismissal was not filed with the WCAB, divesting it of jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalLack of ProsecutionJurisdictionTimelinessProof of ServiceWCJAdministrative Law JudgeAshley Furniture Industries
References
1
Case No. Docket No. 10
Regular Panel Decision

Zhong v. August August Corp.

Plaintiff Jian Zhong filed a class action against defendant August August Corp. alleging denial of overtime compensation and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Minimum Wage Act (NYMWA). Defendant August filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the FLSA overtime claims and related state law claims, but denied it in part, allowing the FLSA minimum wage claims and related state law claims to proceed. Plaintiff Zhong was granted leave to amend the complaint to address the deficiencies in the dismissed claims.

FLSANYMWAWage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationMinimum Wage ViolationMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6) MotionLeave to AmendClass Action PotentialSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. 14 West Garment Factory Corp.

This case concerns a special proceeding initiated by Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, seeking injunctive relief against apparel manufacturers and contractors, 14 West Garment Factory Corp. and Ding and Mag Fashion, Inc. The petitioner alleged that the respondents were producing and selling 'hot goods' in violation of Labor Law articles 6 and 19, pertaining to wage payment and minimum wage. The court had previously issued a temporary restraining order, and the current opinion addresses the petitioner's motion for a preliminary injunction and 14 West's cross-motion to dismiss. Justice Alice Schlesinger granted the preliminary injunction and denied the motion to dismiss, affirming the strict liability of manufacturers and contractors under the 'hot goods' law, distinct from retailers who have a good-faith exception. The court emphasized the remedial purpose of the statute to protect workers from underpayment and to prevent illicit profits from illegal labor.

Injunctive ReliefLabor Law ViolationsHot GoodsWage TheftMinimum WageApparel IndustryStrict LiabilityStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawRegulatory Enforcement
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06093 [210 AD3d 417]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2022

Polonia v. 14 Sutton Tenants Corp.

Plaintiff Charles Felix Polonia was injured after tripping on a wooden plank on a sidewalk bridge at a construction site. He filed suit against 14 Sutton Tenants Corporation and Central Construction Management, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 241 (6), and 200, as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied Polonia's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motions to dismiss all causes of action against them. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Labor Law claims were inapplicable and that Central Construction Management did not create the dangerous condition or supervise the work. The court determined that Polonia's fall was not due to a height differential or lack of fall protection as required by the cited Labor Law sections.

Construction AccidentSidewalk BridgeLabor LawSummary JudgmentFall ProtectionIndustrial CodeNegligenceSupervisory ControlPremises LiabilityAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ8339035
Regular
Dec 18, 2013

SILVIA FORNO vs. ACCENT CARE, INC.; CHARTIS INSURANCE, Administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The defendant requested removal to address liens filed after their Declaration of Readiness to Proceed. The Appeals Board granted the petition, agreeing that discovery was needed for liens filed after August 14, 2013. The trial date of January 15, 2014, will now only address liens filed prior to that date. Any liens filed after August 14, 2013, will remain off calendar.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to Proceedlien trialCompromise and Releaselien claimantsdiscoveryoff calendarWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judgelien conference
References
0
Case No. ADJ6440381
Regular
Jan 20, 2015

DAVID SOWLES vs. MERIDIAN MANAGEMENT GROUP, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of an award finding the applicant sustained a right hand and wrist injury on August 14, 2003, with a temporary total disability rate of $501.59 based on earnings of $752.38 weekly. The defendant argued the rate should be lower due to a provided apartment and that the injury was cumulative, not specific. The Board granted reconsideration solely to correct a clerical error, amending the finding to reflect a cumulative injury through August 14, 2003. Otherwise, the original award, including the earnings and disability rate, was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMeridian Management GroupZenith Insurance CompanyDavid SowlesProperty ManagerAugust 142003Right Hand InjuryRight Wrist InjuryCumulative Industrial Injury
References
0
Case No. CV 96 3467 (RJD)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1997

Gray v. GROVE MFG. CO., DIV. OF KIDDE, INC.

Plaintiffs, including union officials and beneficiaries of Local 14, initiated an action against Grove Manufacturing Company for tortious interference with contract and prima facie tort, also seeking a permanent injunction. The case was removed to the United States District Court, E.D. New York, due to a federal pre-emption claim under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. The core dispute revolved around Grove's marketing of a 'cherrypicker' crane, allegedly enabling employers to bypass a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) requiring a union member for cranes exceeding a certain lift capacity. The court dismissed the prima facie tort claim, citing inadequate pleading of special damages and insufficient evidence of 'disinterested malevolence.' Furthermore, the court granted summary judgment to Grove on the tortious interference and injunction claims, ruling that these state law claims were pre-empted by LMRA § 301 because their resolution necessitated interpretation of the CBA and implicated fundamental federal labor law principles, including the strong policy favoring arbitration.

Labor LawLMRA Section 301Pre-emptionTortious InterferencePrima Facie TortCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentFederal JurisdictionArbitrationUnion
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kenneth V.

This is an appeal from a Family Court order that found respondent August V., Ill neglected his children. The proceeding was initiated by the petitioner, alleging neglect due to the parents' refusal to accept intensive counseling for two children exhibiting aggressive behavior, including wielding a knife. The Family Court initially found the father neglected all seven children. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding no evidence of parental misconduct by the father. The court determined that treatment recommendations were not directly communicated to the father, and he was unaware of the escalated fighting. Consequently, the petition against August V., Ill was dismissed due to insufficient proof of neglect.

NeglectChild protectionParental misconductFamily lawChild welfareAbuseErie CountyAppellate reviewParental responsibilityMental health services
References
6
Case No. ADJ7803069
Regular
Mar 22, 2016

EDILBERTO CERNA ROMERO vs. STONES AND TRADITIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the judge's finding regarding a September 14, 2015 utilization review (UR) decision. The Board found this second UR decision, which sought further information on some treatments, to be timely for all requested modalities. Consequently, the Board ruled that the UR decision of September 14, 2015, was timely, and the WCJ lacked jurisdiction to review the medical necessity of the denied treatments. The Board did not disturb the WCJ's finding that the August 12, 2015 UR decision was untimely.

Utilization ReviewTimelinessLabor Code Section 4610Request for AuthorizationDWC Form RFAIndependent Medical ReviewMedical NecessityProspective ReviewConcurrent ReviewAppeals Board
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Petty v. Dresser Industries

The decedent, a chipper, developed silicosis/pneumoconiosis due to workplace silica exposure and died in May 1997. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded death benefits to his widow, attributing the death to an occupational disease and ruling that the Special Funds Conservation Committee would reimburse the employer after a 260-week waiting period starting May 14, 1997. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending that under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (ee), reimbursement should commence after 104 weeks from July 15, 1993, the date of diagnosis, as this date preceded August 1, 1994. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the 260-week period, noting that no date of disablement was established during the decedent's lifetime, thus making the date of death the trigger for the waiting period, which fell after August 1, 1994. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its interpretation that the date of death constitutes the date of disablement when no claim for benefits was made during the decedent’s life, leading to the 260-week waiting period.

SilicosisPneumoconiosisOccupational DiseaseWorkers' CompensationSpecial FundsReimbursementDate of DisablementDate of DeathWaiting PeriodAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,176 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