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. 2016-01683
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2019

Castro v. Malia Realty, LLC

Manuel Castro, a construction worker, and his wife sued Malia Realty, LLC, the construction site owner, for personal injuries after Castro allegedly fell from a scaffold. Malia Realty, LLC, then commenced a third-party action against Target Contracting, LLC, Castro's employer. Plaintiffs alleged common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a unified trial, citing a perceived strict Second Department rule favoring bifurcation, and limited medical testimony regarding Castro's brain injuries during the liability phase. The jury found that Castro did not fall from a scaffold. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the judgment, set aside the verdict, and granted a new, unified trial, holding that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion. The court clarified that bifurcation is not absolutely required in the Second Department and that a unified trial was warranted here because the nature of Castro's injuries was inextricably intertwined with the issue of liability, making evidence of brain injuries probative as to how the incident occurred.

Personal InjuryBifurcated TrialUnified TrialLabor LawScaffold AccidentConstruction Site InjuryAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionEvidence AdmissibilityJury Verdict
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rowe v. Board of Education

Plaintiff sued Chatham Central School District Middle School for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in the school cafeteria, allegedly due to accumulated mud, water, and a lack of rain mats. The defendant School District subsequently impleaded the Chatham Central Teachers’ Association, claiming the Association was in control of the cafeteria and responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. Following a trial, the jury rendered a verdict of no cause for action in favor of both the School District and the Association. However, Special Term set aside this verdict and granted a new trial, based on evidence suggesting an accumulation of mud and water and the defendant's failure to provide janitorial services. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed Special Term's order, reinstating the original jury verdict, concluding that the jury's finding was not against the weight of the evidence given the conflicting testimony presented at trial.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySlip and FallJury VerdictWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewNew Trial Order ReversedSchool CafeteriaChatham Central School DistrictColumbia County
References
3
Case No. ADJ9141320
Regular
Dec 03, 2014

, JOSE LUIS MUNOZ DAVILA, vs. , LOS ANGELES DODGERS; SEDGWICK, FIREMAN'S FUND, ESIS,

This case concerns a defendant, ACE USA, seeking removal to bifurcate the trial on the issue of jurisdiction for a professional athlete's workers' compensation claim. ACE argued it lacked due process because it wasn't adequately notified that all issues would proceed to trial. The Appeals Board denied the removal petition, finding ACE failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the administrative law judge deferring the bifurcation decision. Commissioner Lowe dissented, believing ACE would be prejudiced by proceeding to trial on unprepared issues due to insufficient notice.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardACE USAJurisdictionDue ProcessMandatory Settlement ConferencePretrial Conference StatementBifurcationLabor Code section 3600.5Prejudice
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05688
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v. New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings

Sahara Construction Corp. challenged a determination by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that upheld civil penalties and a restitution order for violations related to a home improvement project. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed OATH's determination, finding that the imposed civil penalties of $5,000 and restitution of $230,266.63 were not disproportionate and fell within statutory guidelines. The Court also affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motions to dismiss and compel discovery, concluding they were not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Home Improvement ContractorsCivil PenaltiesRestitution AwardAdministrative Code ViolationsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSense of FairnessAdministrative Summons
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scott v. Pershing Construction Co.

Plaintiff, a structural iron worker, appealed from a judgment in favor of defendants after a jury trial and an order denying a new trial, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained from tripping on a loose board at a construction site. Defendants claimed the incident was staged, leading to a dispute over the admissibility of hospital records and injury evidence during the liability phase of the bifurcated trial. The trial court also erred in its jury instructions regarding defendants' responsibilities under Labor Law § 241 (6). The appellate court reversed the judgment and order, granted plaintiff's motion for a new trial, and directed that liability and damages issues be tried together due to being inextricably intertwined.

Personal InjuryNegligenceBifurcated TrialEvidence AdmissibilityJury InstructionsLabor LawConstruction Site AccidentStructural Iron WorkerReversible ErrorNew Trial
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jo v. JPMC Specialty Mortg., LLC

Mee Jin-Jo (now deceased and represented by her daughter Billian Jo) filed a pro se lawsuit against JPMC Specialty Mortgage, LLC, alleging improper retention of property after her eviction. Following a jury verdict of "no cause of action," Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court addressed Plaintiff's grievances concerning evidentiary rulings, consistency between in limine rulings and trial decisions, the presence of a corporate representative, proper service of discovery documents, opportunity to review deposition transcripts, judicial conduct, and the admissibility of new evidence and lay opinion testimony. The Court denied the motion, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a new trial was warranted.

Motion for New TrialRule 59 FRCPEvidentiary RulingsJury VerdictHarmless ErrorCorporate RepresentativeDeposition TranscriptLay Opinion TestimonyFederal Rules of EvidenceJudicial Discretion
References
50
Case No. ADJ3782484 (OAK 343607)
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

BRIAN GARRETT vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for removal and rescinded the trial judge's order setting a Labor Code Section 132a discrimination claim for trial. The WCAB found that the applicant's Section 132a petition was too vague to determine the alleged violations. Furthermore, the WCAB determined that the defendant had not shown sufficient prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant bifurcating the trial or consolidating it with the underlying industrial injury claim. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to ensure an expeditious conclusion.

Labor Code 132aDiscriminationRemoval PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJQualified Medical EvaluatorQMEIndustrial InjuryCase-in-chiefMandatory Settlement Conference
References
0
Case No. ADJ8075448
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

ALEX ROBLES vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a trial judge's award in favor of applicant Alex Robles against Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). SCGC sought reconsideration, asserting that crucial testimony was omitted from the trial record. The WCAB ordered transcription of all trial testimony to ensure a full and fair adjudication of SCGC's petition. This action was necessary to allow the Board further study of the factual and legal issues involved.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAOE/COEGoing and Coming RuleMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceTrial TestimonyWCAB Rule 10740Transcript TranscriptionElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 1982

Cerrato v. Thurcon Construction Corp.

This case concerns a construction worker (plaintiff) who sustained serious injuries and sued 211 Thompson Corp. (owner) and Thurcon Construction Corp. (general contractor). Defendant 211 Thompson Corp. raised an affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service of process. After the Statute of Limitations had expired, plaintiff moved to strike this defense, while 211 cross-moved to dismiss the action as time-barred. Special Term referred the issue of service validity to a referee, but the plaintiff argued for a jury trial on this factual issue. The Appellate Division, Supreme Court, New York County, modified Special Term's order, directing a jury trial on the validity of the service, while otherwise affirming the original determination. The dissenting opinion argued that the right to a jury trial should not be conditioned on the stage of proceedings or the impact of dismissal on the Statute of Limitations, and furthermore, considered the question of authority to accept service as one of law, not fact.

Jury TrialService of ProcessPersonal JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsAffirmative DefenseAppellate ReviewCPLRProcedural LawConstruction AccidentsNew York Courts
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Orenstein

This is a class action brought by shareholders of Topper Corporation against the corporation and various defendants, including Arthur Young & Company, alleging violations of federal securities laws due to false and misleading financial information. Defendant Arthur Young & Company moved to quash the plaintiffs' jury demand, asserting the case's complexity rendered it unsuitable for a jury, and alternatively sought a single, continuous trial for liability and damages. The Court, presided over by District Judge Bonsal, recognized the plaintiffs' Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. Consequently, the Court denied Arthur Young's motion to quash the jury demand, concluding that the case, estimated to last six to eight weeks, was within a jury's capabilities. Additionally, the motion to mandate a continuous trial was denied, with the Court leaving open the possibility of bifurcating the trial on liability and damages at a later stage if needed.

Securities FraudClass ActionJury TrialFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSeventh AmendmentDue DiligenceFinancial MisrepresentationAuditing ProceduresUnderwriting ProceduresTrial Bifurcation
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 5,360 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