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

Gonzalez v. Caballero

Luis Gonzalez, an employee, sued John Caballero, a driver for New England Motor Freight Inc. (NEMF), and NEMF for negligence after being injured while moving heavy display racks that Caballero had left on the street. Caballero had refused to assist Gonzalez, who was the only hospital employee on duty. NEMF moved for judgment on the pleadings, contending they owed Gonzalez no duty of care. The court granted NEMF's motion, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. It concluded that NEMF did not owe a duty of care to Gonzalez, as Caballero's mere inaction did not create such a duty, and Gonzalez's injuries were not foreseeable.

NegligenceDuty of careJudgment on the pleadingsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c)Common lawContractual dutyForeseeabilityPersonal injuryDelivery serviceThird-party beneficiary
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzalez v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Julia Gonzalez initiated this action against the Commissioner of Social Security, asserting that her application for disability benefits and supplemental security income was improperly denied. Gonzalez, a 36-year-old former assembly line worker, claimed disability due to her HIV+/AIDS status, complicated by recurrent herpes simplex virus (HSV) outbreaks and chronic leg pain. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had initially denied her application, concluding she retained the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work. However, the District Court found that the ALJ committed errors by not properly evaluating Gonzalez's impairment under specific HIV listings (14.08D2a and 14.08N) of the Social Security Act and by failing to adequately credit the medical opinions of her treating physician, Dr. Amneris Luque. Consequently, the court granted Gonzalez's motion for judgment on the pleadings, reversed the Commissioner's decision, and remanded the case for the sole purpose of calculating and paying benefits.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeHIV/AIDSHerpes Simplex Virus (HSV)Residual Functional Capacity (RFC)Sedentary WorkTreating Physician RuleAdministrative Law Judge ErrorJudgment on Pleadings
References
14
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02866
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2023

Gonzalez v. Madison Sixty, LLC

Emilio Gonzalez, a worker, sustained injuries while moving a heavy compressor across a makeshift plywood ramp at a construction site owned by Madison Sixty, LLC. The ramp broke, causing the compressor to fall into a trench and strike Gonzalez's foot. Gonzalez and his wife initiated a personal injury action, seeking summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against Madison, but the Supreme Court initially denied their motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that Madison failed to provide adequate safety devices against elevation-related hazards as required by Labor Law § 240 (1). Consequently, the Appellate Division granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-related hazardSummary judgmentConstruction accidentPlywood ramp collapseGravity-related hazardsAppellate DivisionPersonal injuryAbsolute liabilityStatutory violation
References
9
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 03467 [127 AD3d 632]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2015

Matter of Gonzalez v. City of New York

Petitioners, including Anthony Gonzalez, sought to file a late notice of claim against the City of New York and other MTA entities after Gonzalez sustained an injury in a fall. They cited Hurricane Sandy as a reason for their inability to meet with counsel and file timely. However, the court found that Gonzalez had misrepresented his ability to travel during that period. The Supreme Court granted their motion to deem the late notice of claim timely filed. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, denying the petitioners' motion. The court also noted that the respondents did not acquire actual notice of the essential facts regarding negligence within the statutory period.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal Law § 50-eReasonable ExcuseHurricane Sandy ImpactMisrepresentation to CourtActual Notice RequirementAppellate ProcedureSummary DispositionEvidentiary ProofPrejudice by Delay
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzalez v. Secretary of United States Department of Health & Human Services

Lydia Gonzalez, 72, sought Medicare reimbursement for her hospital stay from July 28 to August 19, 1981, following surgeries at Nassau Hospital for a sacral ulcer. The hospital's Utilization Review Committee and Physicians Review Organization determined she only required "custodial care," which is not covered by Medicare. Her discharge was delayed due to insanitary home conditions. After appeals to the New York Statewide Professional Standard Review Council and an Administrative Law Judge affirmed the denial, Gonzalez pursued legal action. The District Court granted the defendant's motion, affirming the Secretary's decision, finding that while the ALJ's reasoning was unclear, substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Gonzalez's extended hospital stay was due to non-medical "disposition problems" rather than a medical necessity for skilled nursing care.

Medicare benefitscustodial careskilled nursing careSocial Security Acthospital dischargemedical necessityadministrative reviewdenial of benefitsUtilization Review CommitteeAppeals Council
References
8
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06151
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2017

Berman-Rey v. Gomez

The plaintiff, Gerson Berman-Rey, was allegedly injured when a plywood fence at a construction site fell and hit him. He was employed as an assistant carpenter on a renovation project owned by the defendants, Sigifredo Gomez and Liliana Gomez. Berman-Rey commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted summary judgment to the defendants on the claims of common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 240(1). The Appellate Division modified the order, denying summary judgment on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, finding triable issues of fact regarding the defendants' creation of or notice of the dangerous condition. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, concluding that the falling fence was not an object being hoisted or requiring securing for the purpose of the undertaking.

Construction Site AccidentPlywood FenceSummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law 200Labor Law 240(1)Dangerous Premises ConditionOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityFalling Object Case
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2017

Gonzalez-Cruz v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Rafael Gonzalez-Cruz sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The court vacated the Commissioner's decision, finding that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred at step five of the disability evaluation process. Specifically, the ALJ failed to resolve an apparent conflict between the vocational expert's testimony regarding available jobs and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles' (DOT) language requirements, given Gonzalez-Cruz's illiteracy and inability to communicate in English. The case was remanded for further proceedings to address this inconsistency, while the court affirmed the ALJ's findings on adaptive functioning and the treating physician rule.

Social Security ActSupplemental Security IncomeJudicial ReviewDisability BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeVocational ExpertDictionary of Occupational TitlesIlliteracyLanguage BarrierMental Impairment
References
82
Case No. ADJ9106180
Regular
Mar 11, 2016

JOSE GONZALEZ (Deceased), ARELY GONZALEZ, MYRNA GONZALEZ vs. STEVENS CREEK QUARRY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves claims by Arely and Myrna Gonzalez following the death of Jose Gonzalez. The defendants are Stevens Creek Quarry and Old Republic Insurance. The Board has issued an order dismissing the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the petitioner because that petitioner withdrew it. Therefore, the reconsideration request will not be reviewed by the Board.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantDeceasedInsurerAdministratorSan Jose District Office
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 1990

Gonzalez v. Chalpin

Plaintiff Gonzalez sued Excel Associates and its partners for breach of contract, seeking unpaid compensation for renovation work. Defendant Chalpin, a limited partner and also the president and sole shareholder of the corporate general partner Tribute Music, Inc., attempted to avoid individual liability by asserting he acted solely in his corporate capacity. Both the trial court and the Appellate Division rejected Chalpin's limited liability defense, finding him individually liable for his actions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Chalpin failed to prove he acted exclusively as an officer of Tribute, and thus was not insulated from individual liability under Partnership Law § 96. The court also rejected the argument that a plaintiff must prove reliance on a limited partner's personal conduct.

Partnership LawLimited Partner LiabilityCorporate OfficerBreach of ContractIndividual LiabilityCorporate VeilRenovation WorkEmployment DisputeAppellantAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. CV-23-1272
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Wilfredo Gonzalez

Claimant Wilfredo Gonzalez sought workers' compensation benefits after a work injury. His counsel was initially awarded a fee, but later requested an additional $480 in counsel fees from late payment penalties assessed against the carrier. The Workers' Compensation Board denied this request, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 24. On appeal, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The Court reasoned that Workers' Compensation Law § 24, even after its 2023 amendment, does not provide for counsel fees to be paid from penalties imposed under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 or otherwise, as the Legislature did not include such a provision in the fee schedule.

Counsel FeesLate Payment PenaltyStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewFee ApplicationPenalty FundsLegislative IntentBoard RegulationsWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 266 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