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. ADJ1406771 (LAO 0726969) MF ADJ1468176 (LAO 0727001) ADJ555495 (LAO 0746656)
Regular
Dec 06, 2013

CARMEN SANCHEZ vs. CROWN CITY PLATING, WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a prior award concerning Carmen Sanchez's claims against Crown City Plating and Wausau Underwriters. The Board affirmed the finding that Sanchez sustained industrial injuries to multiple body parts, including her back, resulting in 91% permanent disability, deeming the injuries' effects "inextricably intertwined." The decision clarified that the applicant's attorney's fees are to be awarded against the commuted value of the life pension. Furthermore, the Board upheld the order for Wausau/Liberty to adjust reimbursement rights with CIGA, reserving jurisdiction for future disputes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCarmen SanchezCrown City PlatingWausau Underwriters Insurance CompanyLiberty Mutual InsuranceCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)HIH InsuranceReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Disability
References
9
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05347 [163 AD3d 885]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2018

Sanchez v. 3180 Riverdale Realty, LLC

The plaintiff, Jose Sanchez, was injured while performing construction work on premises owned by the defendant, 3180 Riverdale Realty, LLC. Sanchez, employed by nonparty Badaly & Badaly Construction, commenced an action for personal injuries, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting the exclusivity defense of the Workers' Compensation Law, arguing it was an alter ego of Sanchez's employer. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the order, finding the defendant failed to establish prima facie that it was an alter ego of the plaintiff's employer or controlled its day-to-day operations. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied.

Personal injuryConstruction accidentSummary judgmentWorkers' Compensation exclusivityAlter ego doctrineLabor Law § 240(1)Premises liabilityAppellate reviewEmployer liabilityDay-to-day operations
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1990

UBAF Arab American Bank v. Sanchez

Plaintiff UBAF Arab American Bank sued its former vice-president, Sanchez, for $11.5 million due to unauthorized foreign exchange transactions and falsified bank records. Plaintiff sought discovery of Sanchez's credit card and bank records, which was initially denied by protective orders citing privacy. After obtaining some Citibank records, plaintiff moved to reargue and renew these orders. The Supreme Court modified the previous orders, granting plaintiff's motion to reargue and renew. Consequently, protective orders were vacated regarding Sanchez's credit card records and a Citibank deposition, allowing further discovery, but affirmed the protective order concerning the Royce Hotel records. The court emphasized that discovery should facilitate proving a case and is not contingent on prior proof of financial benefit.

DiscoveryProtective OrderForeign ExchangeFalsifying RecordsBreach of Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentFraudBank RecordsCredit Card RecordsNon-party Deposition
References
4
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00957 [136 AD3d 783]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2016

Sanchez v. Metro Builders Corp.

Juan P. Sanchez initiated a personal injury lawsuit after falling three stories from a roof during snow removal, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against general contractor Metro Builders Corp. and subcontractor JMZ Builders, Inc. Metro, in turn, sought indemnification from JMZ and Sanchez's employers, Cocos Brothers. The Appellate Division ultimately granted Sanchez's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability against Metro, finding Metro to be a statutory agent of the owner. Concurrently, Metro's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence was granted, while its claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) were denied on the merits. Metro's indemnification claims against JMZ and Cocos Brothers were dismissed as untimely.

Workplace FallConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsSummary Judgment GrantedGeneral ContractorStatutory AgentIndemnification ClaimsAppellate ReviewPersonal InjurySafety Devices
References
20
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05619 [232 AD3d 1024]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2024

Matter of Sanchez v. Baldor Specialty Foods Inc.

Claimant Daysi Sanchez appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board had ruled that Sanchez failed to demonstrate attachment to the labor market and suspended her workers' compensation benefits for work-related injuries to her left knee, low back, and consequential depression. Sanchez, having a temporary partial disability, submitted employment applications, but many were for positions outside her medical restrictions. She also refused a light-duty work offer that explicitly accommodated her restrictions due to persistent pain. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's findings, concluding that they were supported by substantial evidence.

Labor Market AttachmentTemporary Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical RestrictionsLight-Duty WorkVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimEmployment Applications
References
14
Case No. 534023
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Brenda Sanchez

Brenda Sanchez, a station agent, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision denying her claim for benefits for repetitive stress injuries to her neck, back, left shoulder, left hip, and left hand. Initially, the claim was disallowed as time-barred, but the Appellate Division remitted the matter. Upon remittal, the WCB found that the injuries were not causally related to her employment, discrediting the opinion of her treating physician, Stephen Roberts. The Appellate Division affirmed the WCB's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Sanchez failed to establish a recognizable link between her injuries and a distinctive feature of her occupation, specifically the lifting of heavy coin bags, due to insufficient evidence regarding frequency and a clear causal mechanism.

Occupational diseaseRepetitive stress injuryCausationMedical evidenceSubstantial evidenceStation agentWorkers' compensation benefitsTime-barred claimBoard decisionAppellate review
References
8
Case No. 535753
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Brenda Sanchez

Brenda Sanchez, a former railroad clerk and station agent, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits in October 2020 for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, attributing it to repetitive job duties during her 33-year employment. The employer controverted the claim. Orthopedic surgeon Pamela Levine testified that the condition was causally-related to her job duties. However, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed the claim, and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, finding no sufficient causal link between the alleged occupational disease and a distinctive feature of her employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Sanchez failed to provide sufficient credible medical evidence, as Dr. Levine's testimony did not adequately explain the relationship between claimant's post-1995 duties and her condition, first diagnosed in 2020.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardNew York City Transit AuthorityRepetitive Motion InjurySufficiency of EvidenceExpert Testimony
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanchez v. Berryhill

Plaintiff Ruben Sanchez sought judicial review of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. The plaintiff alleged disability since December 2012 due to multiple impairments including hypertension, diabetes, and COPD. His application was denied initially and on reconsideration, and an ALJ upheld the denial. The district court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding that the ALJ's determination was supported by substantial evidence and any legal error was harmless, particularly regarding the number of jobs existing in the national economy and the evaluation of the plaintiff's intellectual impairment.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsALJ DecisionResidual Functional CapacityVocational ExpertUnskilled WorkIntellectual ImpairmentSubstantial EvidenceHarmless ErrorJudgment on Pleadings
References
17
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06885
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2025

Sanchez v. 12E63, LLC

The plaintiffs, Santos Miguel Espinal Sanchez et al., appealed an order dismissing their personal injury complaint alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) during construction work on the defendant's property. The defendant, 12E63, LLC, had moved to dismiss based on documentary evidence, arguing homeowner exemption and lack of supervision, which the Supreme Court, Queens County, granted. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the defendant's documentary evidence did not conclusively refute the plaintiffs' factual allegations or establish a defense as a matter of law under CPLR 3211 (a)(1). Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied, reinstating the plaintiffs' claims.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSafe Place to WorkHomeowner ExemptionCPLR 3211 (a) (1)Motion to DismissAppellate ReviewDocumentary EvidenceReversed
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanchez v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Plaintiff Sanchez filed a negligence action against defendant National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak) and another entity, alleging injury on February 10, 2005. Amtrak moved for summary judgment, asserting the accident occurred on February 5, 2005, making the claim untimely. Plaintiff's verified complaint and bill of particulars, along with workers' compensation records, stated the injury date as February 10, 2005. While Supreme Court and the Appellate Division initially dismissed the complaint, the higher court reversed, determining that the conflicting proof regarding the incident date presented a material issue of fact. Consequently, summary judgment was deemed unwarranted, and the plaintiff's complaint was reinstated.

Statute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentNegligence ActionPersonal InjuryVerified PleadingsAccident Date DisputeWorkers' Compensation ClaimAppellate ReviewIssue of FactReinstatement of Complaint
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 260 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