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

Guzman v. Bevona

Carlos Guzman, a member and former shop steward of Local 32B-32J, sued the Union's Joint Executive Board for violating his rights under the LMRDA and LMRA, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law. Guzman alleged he was retaliated against for protesting union dues and salaries, specifically by being excluded from a meeting, subjected to surveillance by union-hired private investigators, and having his work hours reduced. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that Guzman's claims had sufficient grounds to proceed, including potential damages for breach of union constitution and for extreme and outrageous conduct causing emotional distress.

Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLabor Management Relations ActFreedom of Speech and AssemblyUnion Dues ProtestShop Steward ExclusionSurveillanceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMotion to DismissUnion Constitution BreachRetaliation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carlo v. Carlo

Plaintiff moved to enforce a provision of a divorce decree, seeking payment of compensation benefits awarded to defendant Peter De Carlo. The court found that the plaintiff failed to properly serve the defendant board and the Attorney-General, who represents the board, thereby failing to obtain proper jurisdiction. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to join the State Insurance Fund, the carrier liable for the compensation benefits at issue, as a party to the proceeding. Consequently, the court disagreed with Special Term’s determination, concluding that jurisdiction over the board was never properly obtained and the motion was effectively denied due to these procedural and jurisdictional defects.

Divorce Decree EnforcementService of ProcessJurisdictionAttorney-General RepresentationState Insurance FundWorkers' Compensation BenefitsFailure to Join Necessary PartiesProcedural DefectsAppellate ReviewMotion Denial
References
1
Case No. KA 11-00996
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2012

DIAZ, CARLOS, PEOPLE v

This case involves an appeal concerning the classification of Carlos Diaz under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The Monroe County Court initially determined him to be a level three risk, despite the risk assessment instrument (RAI) indicating a level two risk. The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended an upward departure based on his offense pattern and schizophrenia diagnosis. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, found the County Court's upward departure to be an error, stating that the factors relied upon were either already accounted for by the RAI or lacked sufficient admissible evidence. Consequently, the Appellate Division modified the order, classifying Diaz as a level two risk, with Justice Fahey dissenting.

Sex Offender Registration ActRisk Assessment InstrumentUpward DepartureLevel Two RiskLevel Three RiskSchizophrenia DiagnosisMental IllnessAppellate ReviewForcible CompulsionSexual Offenses
References
10
Case No. CV-23-1881
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Carlos Jover

Carlos Jover appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying him permanent partial disability benefits due to a failure to demonstrate attachment to the labor market. Jover sustained work-related injuries in 2015, leading to a permanent partial disability classification in 2018 with a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity. The Board previously found insufficient evidence of job search efforts within his restrictions and later affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding that he failed to show labor market attachment, citing that many applied jobs required specialized qualifications, education, or English proficiency which he lacked. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Jover did not engage in a diligent and persistent independent job search within his medical limitations. The decision highlighted the Board's discretion in evaluating witness credibility and weighing conflicting evidence regarding labor market attachment.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLabor Market AttachmentWage-Earning CapacityJob Search EffortsMedical RestrictionsEnglish ProficiencyVocational DataSpinal Fusion SurgeryAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gutierrez v. Rhea

Carlos Gutierrez sought to succeed to his late mother's tenancy as a remaining family member (RFM) in an NYCHA apartment. His mother, Amparo, had requested to add Carlos to her lease in 2004, but NYCHA failed to process the application, despite Carlos living there and being listed on income affidavits. NYCHA later denied Carlos RFM status citing a 1996 burglary conviction, without notifying Amparo or Carlos, or providing an opportunity to demonstrate rehabilitation, violating its own rules and due process. The court annulled NYCHA's determination, finding it unsupported by substantial evidence and noting the agency's procedural failures. The case was remanded to NYCHA for reconsideration of whether Carlos currently poses a threat to other tenants, acknowledging his sustained psychiatric stability and sobriety.

Remaining Family MemberSuccession RightsPublic HousingDue Process ViolationCriminal HistoryRehabilitation EvidenceAdministrative Agency RulesArbitrary and CapriciousAnnulment of DeterminationRemand for Reconsideration
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2014

Guzman v. Jay

Plaintiff Noel Jackson Guzman filed a Section 1983 action against New York City Police Officer Brian Jay, alleging false arrest and excessive force stemming from a 2009 incident. A jury trial resulted in a verdict for Guzman, awarding him significant compensatory and punitive damages for false arrest and excessive force. Officer Jay subsequently moved for a new trial, remittitur, and judgment as a matter of law. The court denied motions for a new trial and remittitur, but granted judgment as a matter of law on the false arrest claim due to qualified immunity. This decision was based on the jury's finding that Officer Jay reasonably, though possibly mistakenly, believed Guzman was fighting at the time of arrest.

False ArrestExcessive Force42 U.S.C. § 1983Qualified ImmunityJury VerdictRemittiturNew Trial MotionJudgment as a Matter of LawPolice MisconductPersonal Injury
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guzman v. Hazemag U.S.A., Inc.

Plaintiff Guzman filed a diversity action alleging product liability and negligence for a hand injury sustained at work in December 1988, involving a machine manufactured by defendants Grasan and Hazemag U.S.A., Inc. Prior to this federal suit, Guzman pursued relief through the Workers' Compensation Board, which initially denied his claim but later determined an employer-employee relationship with M & C Transfer Station and Recycling Inc., against whom he also had a pending state court action. Guzman sought to dismiss the federal action without prejudice to consolidate it with the state court case, citing judicial economy. The district court denied the Rule 41(a)(2) motion, reasoning that the Workers' Compensation Board's finding eliminated the judicial economy justification, as New York Workers' Compensation Law § 29(6) would likely provide a complete defense in the state civil action.

Voluntary DismissalRule 41(a)(2) F.R.C.P.Judicial EconomyDiversity JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation LawProduct LiabilityNegligence ClaimFederal Court ProcedureState Court ActionEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
8
Case No. ADJ1 0127152
Regular
Jun 26, 2017

ROBERT CARLOS vs. GENESIS LOGISTICS INC., NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied applicant Robert Carlos's Petition for Removal. Carlos sought to rescind an order that took his case off calendar pending a supplemental report from an orthopedic QME and requested a rheumatology QME panel or a hearing. The WCAB adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, finding that Carlos failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm required for removal. Consequently, the WCAB affirmed the order and denied the petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for RemovalWCJQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelorthopedicrheumatologytaken off calendarsupplemental reportdiscretionary power
References
2
Case No. P11153/93
Regular Panel Decision

Aida G. v. Carlos P.

This case concerns a custody dispute in Queens Family Court between a natural mother, Alexandra K., who wished to surrender her child for adoption, and the natural father, Carlos P., supported by the paternal grandmother, Aida G., who sought custody. The mother denied signing consent for adoption and cross-moved to terminate the father's parental rights, arguing her right to place the child for adoption was superior. The court, applying the "best interest of the child" standard, found the mother lacked standing to terminate the father's rights and that her arguments were legally invalid. The father demonstrated a substantial interest in the child, and after hearings, the court granted joint custody of Chris P. to Carlos P. and Aida G., with physical custody arrangements dependent on the father's Marine Reserves schedule. The decision prioritized the child's stability and the father's demonstrated commitment over the mother's desire to avoid parental responsibility.

Custody DisputeParental RightsAdoptionPaternity PetitionBest Interest of the ChildJoint CustodyTermination of Parental RightsFamily CourtLaw GuardianParental Responsibility
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guzman v. Concavage Marine Construction Inc.

Oscar Guzman sued his former employer, Concavage Marine Construction, Inc., Intercoastal Water Transportation, Inc., and owners Nicholas and Joanne Concavage, alleging racial discrimination and hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the New York State Human Rights Law. He also claimed unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the alleged discrimination was based on geographic foreignness, not race, and that Guzman waived his FLSA and New York Labor Law claims for a certain period by signing a Department of Labor Form WH-58. The court denied Defendants' motion in its entirety, finding the discrimination allegations plausible as racial, and that the validity of the WH-58 waiver was questionable due to alleged duress, thus allowing all of Plaintiff's claims to proceed.

Racial discriminationHostile work environmentWage and hourOvertime payFLSANew York Labor LawMotion to dismissEconomic duressSection 1981Human Rights Law
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 301 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