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. ADJ123485
Regular
Aug 21, 2014

AUGUSTINE BARRAGAN vs. MISSION BUILDERS HOME IMPROVEMENT, LP, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, KUKLAKI, INC, VICTORIA STATHIS, SAN DIEGO ROOFING, INC, GARY LOUGIAKIS, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves applicant Augustine Barragan against multiple defendants, including Mission Builders Home Improvement, LP and Kukliki, Inc. (dba San Diego Roofing), which are uninsured. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration. Pending a Decision After Reconsideration, all future filings and communications must be submitted in writing directly to the WCAB Commissioners' Office in San Francisco, not to any district office or via e-filing.

Augustine BarraganMission Builders Home Improvement LPCalifornia Insurance CompanyKuklaki Inc.San Diego Roofing Inc.uninsuredVictoria StathisGary LougiakisUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundPetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2002

Augustine v. Sugrue

Plaintiff Robert Augustine commenced an action for personal injuries from a multiple-vehicle accident. He was a passenger in a truck owned and operated by co-employee John N. Sugrue, both employed by Con Edison and traveling to employee training. Another vehicle, operated by George Eytzinger, crashed into Sugrue's truck, propelling it into a vehicle operated by Andrew W. Novak. Sugrue moved for summary judgment, arguing Augustine's injuries arose during employment, making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy. The Supreme Court denied this motion due to a triable issue of fact regarding Workers' Compensation Law coverage. The appellate court reversed the order denying summary judgment, emphasizing that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of workers' compensation benefits before courts rule on such motions. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for a new determination after the Board's resolution.

Personal InjuryMultiple-Vehicle AccidentSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAppellate ReviewReversalRemittalEmployment AccidentScope of Employment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Locke v. ST. AUGUSTINE'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH

Kenneth Locke sued St. Augustine’s Episcopal Church and Reverend Canon Howard K. Williams under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) for unpaid wages and overtime. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the Court granted, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court determined that St. Augustine's did not qualify for FLSA enterprise coverage due to insufficient commercial income, and Locke did not meet the criteria for individual coverage as his work lacked sufficient interstate commerce activity. Consequently, the state law claims under the NYLL were dismissed without prejudice as the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionEnterprise CoverageIndividual CoverageNonprofit ExemptionReligious OrganizationWage and Hour DisputeUnpaid Wages
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Augustine v. Dandrea

The plaintiff, Augustine, was struck by a vehicle driven by Melissa A. Dandrea and owned by Richard Dandrea while collecting recycling. Defendants impleaded plaintiff's employer and a co-worker, seeking contribution. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, finding a triable issue of fact regarding the co-worker's negligence. The court upheld the decision to set aside the jury verdict that found Melissa Dandrea not negligent, deeming it against the weight of evidence. However, the court modified the order by vacating the directed judgment on liability for the plaintiff, instead granting a new trial on the issue of liability, including comparative negligence and causation.

Vehicle AccidentNegligencePersonal InjuryThird-Party ActionSummary JudgmentJury VerdictAppellate ReviewComparative NegligenceCausationRoad Safety
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2009

Augustin v. Enlarged City School Dist. of Newburgh

Plaintiff Ertha Augustin, a teacher of Haitian descent, sued Annette Saturnelli, Joan Goudy-Crosson, and the Enlarged City School District of Newburgh under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York State Executive Law § 296, alleging employment termination due to national origin discrimination. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment for Saturnelli and the School District on all claims, and for Goudy-Crosson on state law claims, finding no evidence of discriminatory animus or knowledge on their part. However, summary judgment was denied for Goudy-Crosson on the federal discrimination claim, as sufficient evidence of potential discriminatory motive and influence on plaintiff's termination existed to warrant a jury trial.

DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationEmployment TerminationTeacherSchool DistrictSummary JudgmentSection 1983New York State Executive LawQualified ImmunityMcDonnell Douglas Framework
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2006

Glover v. Augustine

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the defendants-appellants' motion for summary judgment concerning negligent hiring and premises security but granted their request for a psychological examination of the plaintiff. On appeal, these orders were unanimously affirmed. The court found a triable issue of fact regarding negligent hiring, as the defendants employed Augustine without a background check despite knowing he was a convicted felon, and he subsequently attacked the plaintiff. It was deemed unforeseeable as a matter of law that Augustine's attack was not foreseeable, particularly given his prior convictions for sexual abuse. Additionally, the court upheld the psychological examination due to the plaintiff's claim of psychological injury from the attack.

Negligent HiringPremises SecuritySummary JudgmentPsychological ExaminationForeseeabilityCriminal Background CheckSex OffenderCorrection LawAppellate DivisionEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. ADJ9 301642
Regular
Mar 23, 2016

ELENA BARRAGAN vs. PEP BOYS, CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Elena Barragan's Petition for Removal, finding that removal is an extraordinary remedy and she failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which concluded that Barragan's petition to remove the PQME was already set for trial, and discovery remained open for her treating physician's reports. Therefore, reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision were issued.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPQMEmandatory settlement conferencesubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationPR-4 evaluationmedical-legal evaluationprimary treating doctor
References
4
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05524 [119 AD3d 916]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2014

Pena v. Varet & Bogart, LLC

The plaintiff, Augustin Pena, was injured after falling from a 20-foot ladder while washing windows at a four-story hostel owned by Varet and Bogart, LLC, and operated by First Consul Development, LLC. He subsequently commenced an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing this cause of action and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that they failed to establish, prima facie, that Pena's activity was not "cleaning" under Labor Law § 240 (1), thereby reversing that part of the lower court's decision. However, it affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment, as triable issues of fact remained regarding whether his activity was covered by the statute.

Personal InjuryFall from LadderWindow WashingRoutine MaintenanceElevated Work SiteStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentNondelegable DutyConstruction LawLiability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel

Plaintiff Augustine Fernandez filed a lawsuit in New York State Court following an automobile collision, seeking one million dollars in damages. He named Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel, John Doe, JBN Transport, and Dan Schantz Farm & Greenhouses as defendants. The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction. Fernandez moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing the removal was untimely and the amount in controversy was insufficient. The court, applying the "last-served defendant rule," determined the removal was timely as the last defendant received the summons on April 23, 2004, and the removal petition was filed within 30 days. The court also accepted Fernandez's stated damages of $1 million for diversity jurisdiction purposes, rejecting his attempt to disclaim it. Consequently, Fernandez’s motion to remand the case to state court was denied.

Diversity JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionMotion to RemandTimeliness of RemovalLast-Served Defendant RuleAmount in ControversyService of ProcessStatutory AgentCivil ProcedureSouthern District of New York
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2011

Augustin v. Jablonsky

Defendants moved to decertify the class regarding special damages, arguing that such claims are too individualized. Plaintiffs opposed, contending that 'garden-variety emotional distress' damages should be determined class-wide. The Court previously awarded general damages of $500 per strip search for the injury to human dignity. However, it ruled that claims for emotional distress damages beyond this general award are inherently individualized and require separate proof, thus granting the defendants' motion to not extend class certification to special damages. The Court also addressed pre- and post-judgment interest and the distribution of the general damages award.

Class ActionStrip SearchEmotional DistressGeneral DamagesSpecial DamagesDecertificationRule 23(b)(3)Constitutional ViolationCivil RightsHuman Dignity
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 33 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