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. 2018 NY Slip Op 03854 [161 AD3d 1188]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The plaintiff, a school bus matron, sustained injuries in a collision and subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Jea Bus Co., Inc. was her employer, and she began receiving benefits from their insurer. The plaintiff then commenced a personal injury action against Jea Bus Co., Inc., and Tebaldo A. Sibilia, the bus driver and a Smart Pick, Inc. employee. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied this motion, finding triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Jea Bus Co., Inc., on the grounds of workers' compensation exclusivity, as the plaintiff had accepted benefits from them. However, the court denied summary judgment for Sibilia, finding he failed to establish prima facie that he was a special employee of Jea Bus Co., Inc., and thus not entitled to co-employee immunity.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate PracticeCo-Employee ImmunitySpecial Employee StatusGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board JurisdictionEmployer LiabilityContribution and Indemnification
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Carole Fontus was allegedly injured after being struck by a school bus owned by D & J School Bus and operated by DT Transportation, Inc., with Pasquale Amodei as the driver. Fontus and her husband filed a personal injury lawsuit. The defendants raised a fifth affirmative defense, claiming Fontus and Amodei were coemployees under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6), thus barring the action. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike this defense. However, the appellate court modified the order, denying the plaintiffs' motion to strike the fifth affirmative defense, citing unresolved issues of fact regarding the employment relationship between the parties.

Personal InjurySchool Bus AccidentCo-employmentWorkers' CompensationAffirmative DefenseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFactual DisputeEmployment RelationshipMotor Vehicle Accident
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

John Cappellino, a bus driver for Baumann & Sons Bus Company, died from a fatal heart attack in July 2000. His wife filed a claim for death benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Law. The employer failed to file a timely notice of controversy (C-7) as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b), which should have barred them from disputing causation. Despite this, a physician for the employer testified that the death was not work-related. The Workers’ Compensation Board and Appellate Division relied on this testimony to deny benefits. The court reversed the Appellate Division's order, finding that the employer's physician's testimony should have been precluded due to the untimely filing, and remitted the case for further proceedings to determine causation without considering the employer's improperly admitted evidence.

Workers' CompensationUntimely FilingNotice of ControversyCausal RelationshipPreclusion of EvidenceHeart AttackDeath BenefitsEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

This case concerns a breach of contract dispute between Mustang Pipeline Co. (Mustang) and Driver Pipeline Co. (Driver) regarding a pipeline construction project. Mustang sued Driver for failing to complete work timely, while Driver counterclaimed for wrongful termination. The jury initially found both parties breached, but the Supreme Court of Texas clarified that an express jury finding on materiality is not required when 'time is of the essence,' determining Driver's breach was material as a matter of law. This discharged Mustang from its obligations, invalidating the wrongful termination claim. However, Mustang failed to provide sufficient evidence that its claimed damages were reasonable and necessary. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment for Driver, rendered judgment that Driver take nothing, and reversed the award of attorney's fees to Driver, upholding the denial of damages to Mustang.

Breach of ContractMaterial BreachTime is of the EssenceWrongful TerminationContract DamagesReasonableness of CostsAttorney's FeesJury InstructionsAffirmative DefenseJudgment Notwithstanding Verdict
References
12
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05832
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2019

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Nika Markolovic, a bus driver, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging hearing loss due to prolonged work noise. The self-insured employer argued the claim was time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, a point claimant's attorney conceded. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed the claim. Claimant then sought review by the Workers' Compensation Board, contending for the first time that the claim was timely under Workers' Compensation Law § 49-bb. The Board denied review, citing claimant's failure to interpose a specific objection or exception to the WCLJ's ruling as required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (4) (v). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in declining to review the WCLJ's decision given claimant's failure to raise the specific argument regarding Workers' Compensation Law § 49-bb before the WCLJ.

Workers' Compensation LawHearing Loss ClaimStatute of LimitationsAdministrative ReviewObjection RequirementWCLJ DecisionAppellate ReviewTimeliness of ClaimNew York RegulationsBoard Review
References
3
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02521 [227 AD3d 776]
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2024

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Cleotilde Dolores, the plaintiff, sustained personal injuries when her school bus was struck from the rear by another school bus owned by Grandpa's Bus Co., Inc., and driven by Samuel Bercy. She subsequently filed a personal injury action against the defendants. The defendants sought summary judgment, contending that the parties shared a special employment relationship with nonparty Logan Bus Payroll Systems, Inc., which would invoke the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law and bar the action. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendants' motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden to establish the existence of such a special employment relationship.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawSpecial Employment RelationshipEmployer LiabilityBus AccidentRear-End CollisionAppellate PracticePrima Facie BurdenKings County
References
8
Case No. 06-00-00053-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2002

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

This appeal involves a breach of contract dispute between Driver Pipeline Company, Inc. (Appellant) and Mustang Pipeline Company, Inc. (Appellee) concerning a pipeline construction project. Driver was contracted to build a pipeline but faced delays, leading Mustang to terminate the contract and hire another company. At trial, the jury found Driver breached the contract but also that Mustang was not justified in its termination. The trial court subsequently granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on Mustang's damage award, citing a lack of evidence for reasonable and necessary costs. The Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court upheld the JNOV on Mustang's damages and sustained the jury's finding that Mustang's termination was unjustified, while Driver's appeal regarding a statutory mineral lien was not preserved for review.

Breach of ContractConstruction LawAppellate ReviewJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictDamagesReasonable and Necessary CostsMaterial BreachTermination of ContractFactual SufficiencyLegal Sufficiency
References
50
Case No. 03-10-00768-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2011

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

Appellants Tau Kappa Epsilon and Adam Wilson Fomby sued USA Bus Charter, Inc. over problems with chartered buses, including deceptive pricing, late arrivals, and insufficient seating, which initially led to a no-answer default judgment against USA Bus. The district court subsequently granted USA Bus's motion for a new trial, set aside the default judgment, and compelled arbitration, dismissing the suit. Appellants appealed these rulings, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in granting the new trial and enforcing the arbitration agreement. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that USA Bus's corporate counsel's mistake of law regarding Arizona procedural rules constituted a sufficient excuse under the Craddock elements to justify a new trial. Furthermore, the court determined that the appellants' challenges to the arbitration agreement (illusoriness and unconscionability) were broad contract challenges that must be decided by an arbitrator, and upheld the requirement for arbitration in Maricopa County, Arizona, under Arizona law.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActChoice of LawForum Selection ClauseCraddock ElementsConscious IndifferenceMistake of LawMeritorious Defense
References
37
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04070
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Claimant Jeffrey Cisnero, an independent livery driver, sustained injuries when he was shot during a dispatch. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which was initially disallowed by a WCLJ but later reversed by the Workers' Compensation Board, finding coverage through the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF). The carrier appealed, arguing misinterpretation of the relevant statutes, particularly Executive Law § 160-ddd (1). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, determining that Cisnero's injuries arose out of and in the course of providing covered services as an independent livery driver dispatched by an ILDBF member. The court found that the vehicle's attenuated affiliation with the New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund, Inc. did not alter ILDBF's liability.

Workers' CompensationLivery DriverIndependent ContractorBenefit FundAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentStatutory InterpretationExecutive LawWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 1,041 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