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. 2017 NY Slip Op 09213 [156 AD3d 1268]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2017

Claim of Bagnato v. General Electric

The claimant, Ricci Bagnato, alleged a right shoulder injury on June 26, 2014, while working for General Electric. He filed a workers' compensation claim in August 2014, after being terminated for reasons unrelated to the injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding claimant's testimony not credible due to delayed reporting, lack of initial medical treatment, and suspicious timing of the claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board is the sole arbiter of witness credibility and its finding of no work-related accident was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryCredibility AssessmentWork-Related AccidentDelayed ReportingEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceClaim DenialFraudulent Documentation
References
7
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. 2023 NY Slip Op 01881 [215 AD3d 722]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2023

Andrade v. Bergen Beach 26, LLC

The plaintiff, Freddy Andrade, appealed an order denying his motion for summary judgment on liability against Bergen Beach 26, LLC, for a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Andrade was allegedly injured after falling from a ladder at a construction site where his employer was a subcontractor. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the plaintiff's motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as triable issues of fact existed regarding whether Labor Law § 240 (1) was violated and if such a violation was the proximate cause of his injuries.

Personal InjuryLadder FallConstruction SiteLabor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityAppellate ReviewPrima FacieTriable Issues of FactSubcontractor
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04739 [241 AD3d 844]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2025

Rivera v. 26 W. 56, LLC

Nancy Rivera, an employee of Alba Services, Inc., was injured during a building renovation project when an HVAC duct fell on her while she was removing demolition debris. She commenced an action against the property owner, 26 W. 56, LLC, and the general contractor, Abeco Construction, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The defendants cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss this cause of action. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied their cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding whether the HVAC duct required securing and fell due to an inadequate safety device, and also failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of her injuries.

Falling ObjectDemolition AccidentConstruction Site SafetySummary JudgmentTriable Issues of FactWorker SafetyHVAC DuctProximate CauseAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
12
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00744 [191 AD3d 1363]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2021

Lemiszko v. Mosovich 2014 Family Trust

Plaintiff Troy C. Lemiszko commenced an action seeking damages for injuries sustained after falling from a ladder on premises owned by Mosovich 2014 Family Trust. Defendant AAA Contracting, LLC appealed an order denying its pre-answer motion to dismiss Labor Law claims and the Trust's cross-claim for contractual indemnification. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order, rejecting AAA Contracting, LLC's collateral estoppel argument, finding that a prior workers' compensation determination did not preclude plaintiff's Labor Law recovery. The court also upheld the denial of dismissal for the contractual indemnification cross-claim due to insufficient documentary evidence.

Collateral EstoppelLabor Law ClaimsContractual IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation BoardLadder FallPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissGeneral Contractor LiabilityUninsured Employer
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2005

Urbina v. 26 Court Street Associates, LLC

Plaintiff Carlos Urbina, an electrician, sustained severe injuries after falling from a Baker scaffold at a construction site, leading to a fractured patella and multiple surgeries. He and his wife, Lucy Nunez, sued the premises owner, 26 Court Street Associates, LLC, the lessee/general contractor, Town Sports International, Inc. (TSI), and the drywall subcontractor, R & J Construction Corp. (R & J), alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law sections. The Supreme Court's judgment, awarding substantial damages, was appealed, specifically regarding awards for pain and suffering. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, conditionally reducing the awards for past and future pain and suffering, while affirming the grant of contractual indemnity to TSI and Court Street against R & J, based on R & J's contractual obligation to provide scaffolding.

Construction site injuryScaffolding accidentPersonal injury damagesContractual indemnificationLabor Law § 240(1)Damages modificationPain and suffering awardLost wages awardPatella fractureSubcontractor negligence
References
19
Case No. ADJ4149139 (WCK 0053691) ADJ789817 (WCK 0050159)
Regular
Sep 30, 2014

SHEILA MARTIN vs. SAN RAMON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendants. The petitioner has formally withdrawn this petition. Consequently, the Board has dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration of the August 26, 2014 decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Ramon Regional Medical CenterSedgwick Claims Management ServicesSheila MartinCase NumbersOpinion and OrderAugust 26 2014
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Dustin JJ.

This appeal concerns a Family Court order from Broome County, entered December 4, 2012, which adjudicated Dustin JJ. an abandoned child and terminated the respondent-father's parental rights. The child was placed in petitioner's custody shortly after birth in 2010, with the respondent declared the father in July 2011 and the mother surrendering her rights in August 2011. The petitioner initiated abandonment proceedings in February 2012, based on the respondent's failure to visit or communicate with the child or the agency during the critical six-month period from August 26, 2011, to February 26, 2012. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's finding, noting that the respondent's sporadic contacts (one visit and a few phone calls) were insufficient, and his incarceration did not excuse the lack of communication. The decision also upheld the Family Court's discretion in limiting cross-examination and dispensing with a dispositional hearing, reaffirming that a suspended judgment is not an available option after a finding of abandonment.

Parental Rights TerminationAbandonment ProceedingSocial Services LawFamily Court AppealChild CustodyIncarcerated ParentFailure to CommunicateBurden of ProofDiscretion of Trial CourtSuspended Judgment
References
12
Case No. ADJ10387805
Regular
Oct 28, 2019

PARDEEP SINGH vs. 7 ELEVEN, MITSUI SUMITOMO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Pardee Singh's Petition for Reconsideration. The petition was deemed untimely because it was filed on August 28, 2019, which was after the jurisdictional deadline of August 26, 2019. This deadline was calculated from the service date of an Order Allowing Costs on August 1, 2019. The WCAB clarified that for a petition to be timely, it must be *received* by the board within the statutory period, not merely mailed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedWCABWCJLabor Code Section 5900Labor Code Section 5903Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10507Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10508Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10845
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,392 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