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. 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
May 31, 2006

County of Westchester v. Doyle

The petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, that had denied their petition to vacate an arbitration award. The original order confirmed the award and directed interest on compensation for William Leverance's out-of-title work to be calculated from August 20, 2004. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial to vacate the arbitration award, determining that the award did not violate public policy, was not irrational, and did not exceed the arbitrator's authority. However, the order was modified to direct that interest on the award be calculated from September 9, 2005, the date of the award, instead of August 20, 2004. All other contentions raised by the appellant were found to be without merit.

arbitrationawardvacaturCPLR Article 75out-of-title workinterest calculationappellate reviewjudicial modificationWestchester Countypublic policy
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 1984

Claim of Perrin v. Baldwinsville VF Co.

A self-employed meatcutter and volunteer fire chief was injured while responding to a fire call on May 17, 1977, experiencing shortness of breath due to an aggravated preexisting heart condition. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially awarded full benefits for total disability until August 20, 1977, under the Volunteer Fireman’s Benefit Law. However, the Board disallowed further benefits, finding the claimant's continuing partial disability not causally related to employment but rather to the preexisting heart disease. Claimant sought reversal, arguing that any continuing disability from a dormant preexisting condition aggravated by work should be compensable. The appellate court disagreed, affirming the Board's decision, citing sufficient evidence that the effect of work-related activities had totally dissipated by August 20, 1977, and any further disability was unrelated to the employment-related injury.

Heart ConditionVolunteer FiremanWorkers' CompensationCausally Related DisabilityPreexisting ConditionAggravation of InjuryMedical TestimonyPartial DisabilityTotal DisabilityStatus Quo Ante
References
4
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. 2025 NY Slip Op 01171 [235 AD3d 591]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Lopez v. 18-20 Park 84 Corp.

Plaintiff Felipe A. Lazaro Lopez, a painter employed by Dowd Interiors, Inc., suffered a fall from a ladder during renovation work. Lopez filed a personal injury lawsuit against 18-20 Park 84 Corp., the building owner, under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court of New York County initially granted Lopez's motion for partial summary judgment on liability against 18-20 Park 84 Corp. and denied Dowd's motion to dismiss third-party claims for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to Lopez. However, it modified the lower court's order by granting Dowd's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the common-law indemnification and contribution claims. This modification was based on the finding that Lopez did not suffer a 'grave injury' as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallIndemnificationContributionGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law
References
10
Case No. ADJ1560764
Regular
Oct 02, 2014

DEBORAH THOMAS vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The defendant was personally served with the WCJ's orders on July 28, 2014, making the filing deadline August 18, 2014. The petition was not filed until August 22, 2014, exceeding the jurisdictional 20-day limit. Therefore, the Board lacked the authority to consider the petition, even though it would have been denied on the merits had it been timely.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 5903Jurisdictional DeadlinePersonal ServiceMailing ExtensionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportDismissalGovernment Entity Verification
References
3
Case No. ADJ9271600
Regular
Oct 02, 2017

JESUS BARRERA vs. UMAMI RESTAURANT, LLC, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Jesus Barrera's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The WCJ's decision was personally served, triggering a strict 20-day filing deadline for reconsideration, not subject to mail service extensions. Barrera's representative had until August 8, 2017, to file, but the petition was received on August 9, 2017. As the deadline is jurisdictional, the WCAB lacked authority to consider the untimely petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingPersonal Service20-Day LimitJurisdictionalWCABWCJLabor Code SectionsCalifornia Code of RegulationsOrder Dismissing Lien
References
4
Case No. ADJ476130 (LBO 0384293), ADJ4260549 (LBO 0384296), ADJ2444124 (LBO 0384295)
Regular
Sep 23, 2016

HECTOR ALVAREZ vs. JOHNSON CONTROLS BATTERY GROUP, INC, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the applicant, Hector Alvarez, in a workers' compensation matter. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition as untimely. The ALJ's decision was personally served on July 28, 2016, establishing a 20-day deadline for reconsideration. The petition was filed on August 19, 2016, which was two days past the jurisdictional deadline of August 17, 2016. As a result, the WCAB lacked authority to consider the petition's merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingPersonal Service20-Day Time LimitJurisdictional LimitWCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845(a)WCAB Rule 10392(a)Adjudicative Decision
References
4
Case No. ADJ2971436 (OAK 0253681)
Regular
Sep 25, 2012

CRAIG GONSALVES vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior award and found no violation of Labor Code section 132a by UPS. The Board determined that the applicant failed to prove UPS discriminated against him by terminating his employment on August 20, 1999, or June 20, 2001. Furthermore, the Board found the applicant did not establish that UPS refused to allow him to return to work between June 26, 2000, and May 23, 2001, due to his industrial injury or that he received disparate treatment. The applicant did not demonstrate the availability of modified duty or that the employer's actions were not necessitated by business realities.

Labor Code section 132aWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardApplicantEmployerIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryTerminationReturn to Work
References
9
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05774 [120 AD3d 552]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2014

Karanikolas v. Elias Taverna, LLC

This case involves an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by Nikolaos Karanikolas, who fell from a ladder while performing construction work in a building owned by 20 John Street, LLC and leased by Elias Taverna, LLC. The plaintiffs alleged common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County. Key modifications included denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, granting parts of the defendants' cross-motions to dismiss Labor Law § 241 (6) claims based on specific Industrial Code sections, and granting 20 John Street's cross-motion for contractual indemnification against Elias Taverna. Additionally, the court granted Elias Taverna's cross-motion to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against it, as well as claims for common-law indemnification and contribution.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial CodePremises Liability
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,530 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