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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2005

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied defendant Bravo’s motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss defendant 21 West’s cross claims for contribution and indemnification. Bravo failed to establish that the plaintiff was its employee or that it operated as a joint venture, thereby not barring 21 West’s cross claims under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Furthermore, Bravo could not demonstrate insufficient control over the work to negate negligence liability, nor prove supervision over 21 West. The appellate court found that the parties’ conduct, including Bravo commencing work and obtaining an insurance certificate, manifested an intent to be bound by an unsigned contract. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously affirmed the denial of Bravo's summary judgment motion, upholding 21 West's cross claims.

Summary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawCross ClaimsContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationEmployee StatusJoint VentureNegligence Liability
References
4
Case No. 08-CV-3175 (JG)(JO)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2009

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Century 21 Real Estate LLC sued Bercosa Corp. and its owner Pedro Bernard for breach of contract and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The defendants failed to respond to the complaint, leading to a motion for default judgment. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein issued a Report and Recommendation, which District Judge John Gleeson adopted, finding the defendants liable. The court awarded Century 21 a total of $319,832.32 in monetary damages, including contract claims, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Additionally, the defendants were permanently enjoined from using the Century 21 Marks and ordered to cooperate in an audit of Bercosa’s books and records.

Default JudgmentTrademark InfringementLanham ActBreach of ContractFranchise AgreementMonetary DamagesInjunctive ReliefAttorneys' FeesAudit OrderWillful Violation
References
66
Case No. Docket No. 10
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

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. 2015-06-0186, 2015-06-0188, 2015-06-0189
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2017

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Buster Barrett filed three Petitions for Benefit Determination alleging injury on August 27, 2014, January 15, 2015, and January 21, 2015, related to his back, left hip, and shoulder. Lithko Contracting, Inc. had two insurance carriers during this period: Ace American Insurance (until August 31, 2014) and The Travelers (from August 31, 2014, through at least January 21, 2015). Travelers filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it had no liability for the August 27, 2014, accident since Ace American was the carrier then. The Court granted Travelers' motion for summary judgment regarding the August 27, 2014, claim, dismissing Travelers from that case, as Ace American was stipulated to be the insurer. However, the Court denied Travelers' motion for summary judgment for the January 15 and 21, 2015, claims, pending further discovery after Mr. Barrett reaches maximum medical improvement.

Workers' compensationSummary judgmentCausationInsurance coverageTreating physicianMaximum medical improvementDispute certification noticeExpedited hearingStipulationAffidavit
References
2
Case No. 11-06-00103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2008

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This appeal stems from a landlord-tenant dispute. The landlords (Colthurst) initially sued the tenants (Williams) for unpaid rent and property damage. The tenants counterclaimed, alleging wrongful withholding of their security deposit and a premises liability claim after Mrs. Williams was sexually assaulted in the leased home. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the landlords on the unpaid rent claim and a directed verdict on the premises liability claim, with the jury ruling in favor of the landlords on the remaining issues. On appeal, the tenants challenged multiple aspects of the trial court's judgment, including the summary judgment, the directed verdict, and the jury's findings regarding the security deposit and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the handling of the various claims and upholding sanctions against the tenants' counsel for an intrinsic fraud allegation.

Landlord-Tenant DisputeUnpaid RentProperty DamageSecurity DepositPremises LiabilitySexual AssaultDirected VerdictSummary JudgmentAttorney's FeesPrejudgment Interest
References
37
Case No. 2015-232 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

In this action, Easy Care Acupuncture, P.C., acting as an assignee, sought to recover first-party no-fault benefits from 21 Century Advantage Ins. Co. The plaintiff appealed an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The defendant successfully argued that it had fully paid the plaintiff for the services according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term affirmed the order, finding that the defendant's proof was sufficient to establish proper mailing of the denial of claim form and the correct application of the workers' compensation fee schedule.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAppellate TermFirst-Party BenefitsDenial of Claim FormInsurance DisputeAssigned BenefitsCivil CourtAcupuncture Services
References
1
Case No. ADJ1284568 (BAK 0142029)
Regular
Nov 09, 2015

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This order corrects a clerical error in a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision issued August 21, 2015. The original decision failed to include an attorney fee in the total temporary disability award, which was present in the WCJ's initial ruling. The Appeals Board is correcting this omission to ensure clarity and a complete understanding of the award. The corrected decision now includes the attorney fee payable to Leviton, Diaz & Ginocchio, with other aspects of the August 21, 2015 decision affirmed.

Clerical ErrorAttorney FeeTemporary DisabilityPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCDCRNorth Kern State PrisonLegally UninsuredAdjusting Agency
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The claimant sustained a left knee injury, and an independent medical examination (IME) in August 2003 concluded no ongoing work-related disability. Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) suspended benefits and later precluded the IME report due to untimely filing. The WCLJ also granted the employer's request to cross-examine the treating physician and ordered continued payments. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, which the appellate court further affirmed. The appellate court found that the faxed IME report on August 11, 2003, did not substantially comply with filing requirements, and the official report with IME-4 form was received untimely on August 21, 2003. It also ruled that the doctrine of laches did not apply, upholding the order for continued payments.

Independent Medical ExaminationTimely FilingWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Evidence PreclusionLaches DoctrineCausalityContinuing DisabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 137NYCRR 300.2 Filing Requirements
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The case involves an appeal by defendants Route 21 Associates and Max Finkelstein, Inc., from an order denying their motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The plaintiff, an employee of Rapid Dismantling Corporation, was injured while removing asbestos from a warehouse owned by Route 21 Associates and leased by Max Finkelstein, Inc. Applying New Jersey law, the court found that a landowner is not liable for injuries to an independent contractor's employee resulting from the contracted work, provided there was no interference. The appellants demonstrated they exercised no supervision or control, and the respondents failed to present a triable issue of fact. Consequently, the order was reversed, summary judgment was granted, and the complaint and cross claims against the appellants were dismissed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLandowner LiabilityIndependent ContractorAsbestos RemovalNew Jersey LawPremises LiabilityDuty of CareNegligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Prithibee Ghose, of Bangladeshi origin, sued Century 21, Inc. and James Betesh for national origin and racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law, following his termination as a security guard in 1996. Century 21 moved for summary judgment, arguing Ghose failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and that some claims were precluded by not being filed with the EEOC. The Court granted summary judgment, finding that Ghose failed to provide sufficient evidence to infer discrimination, and that additional claims like hostile work environment and retaliation were barred because they were not "reasonably related" to the original EEOC complaint. The court also noted that Section 1981 does not prohibit discrimination based on national origin.

National Origin DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIEEOC PreclusionPrima Facie CaseHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation ClaimDisparate TreatmentEmployment Law
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 1,646 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