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

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. ADJ8899793
Regular
Jul 01, 2015

CARLOS IVAN RODAS (DECEASED), AMANDA GUERRA & CARLOS ILDEFONSO vs. PORCINI, INCORPORATED dba GUIDO'S RESTAURANT; TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision regarding the deceased worker, Carlos Ivan Rodas, and his dependents. The defendant, Porcini, Inc. dba Guido's Restaurant, sought this reconsideration. The WCAB determined that further study of the factual and legal issues is necessary to ensure a just decision. All future filings related to the petition must be submitted directly to the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not to district offices or through the EAMS system.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration GrantedPetition for ReconsiderationCarlos Ivan Rodas (Deceased)Amanda GuerraCarlos IldefonsoPorciniIncorporated dba Guido's RestaurantTruck Insurance ExchangeADJ8899793
References
0
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. 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. 2023 NY Slip Op 00059
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2023

Kirby v. Carlo's Bakery 42nd & 8th LLC

Plaintiff Chontay Kirby appealed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which had granted the defendants' motion to dismiss her first through fourth causes of action. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied the defendants' motion, and reinstated Kirby's causes of action. Kirby had sufficiently stated a claim for employment discrimination under both New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws, alleging racial discrimination by her supervisor. Furthermore, she successfully stated claims for unpaid overtime, failure to pay weekly as a manual worker, and failure to provide a wage notice, all under the Labor Law.

Employment DiscriminationHostile WorkplaceHuman Rights LawOvertime PayLabor Law ViolationsWage NoticeManual WorkerAdverse Employment ActionRacial DiscriminationAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. ADJ8279007
Regular
Jun 01, 2015

CARLOS IBARRA vs. COOPER INTERCONNECT, ESIS

In Case No. ADJ8279007, the Applicant, Carlos Ibarra, had filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a decision issued on March 12, 2015. However, the petitioner subsequently withdrew this petition. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing the Petition for Reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantCase NumberDistrict Office
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2005

Irizarry v. State

Carlos Irizarry, an employee, was injured by an explosion in an electrical box while working at Pilgrim State Hospital. His employer was hired to correct a major power outage problem. The Court of Claims initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the entire claim. However, the appellate court modified this decision, denying the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim due to existing questions of fact regarding the defendant's duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace. The dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was affirmed, as the claimant was not engaged in "construction work" as defined by the Industrial Code.

personal injurieselectrical explosionsummary judgmentlabor lawworkplace safetyindustrial codeconstruction workemployer liabilityappellate reviewpremises liability
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 196 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