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. ADJ7037256
Regular
Jul 27, 2010

DENNY PEREZ vs. MARISELA MILLAN dba CHULA VISTA TOURS, ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found the applicant not to be an employee of Chula Vista Tours. This determination was based on the judge's assessment of the applicant's testimony as not credible, citing evidence of threats and suspicious timing of treatment and claim filing relative to a restraining order. The Board gave great weight to the judge's credibility findings, as is customary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenial of ReconsiderationCredibility DeterminationEmployee StatusChula Vista ToursEndurance Insurance CompanyDriver MechanicDWC-1 Claim FormRestraining Order
References
1
Case No. ADJ8349114
Regular
Sep 26, 2013

JOHN KILPATRICK vs. CITY OF CHULA VISTA

The City of Chula Vista filed a petition for removal and requested a stay of trial to conduct further discovery. However, the parties subsequently informed the Presiding Judge that they had settled their differences and withdrawn the removal petition. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition. This order officially dismisses the City of Chula Vista's August 22, 2013 Petition for Removal.

Petition for RemovalWithdrawal of RemovalDismissal of PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Chula VistaPermissibly Self-InsuredADJ8349114ADJ8349118ADJ8349116Van Nuys District Office
References
0
Case No. ADJ7878653, ADJ7060658
Regular
May 13, 2013

DONALD LUMB vs. CITY OF CHULA VISTA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, amending two prior Findings and Awards. The WCAB allowed the defendant, City of Chula Vista, a credit of $2,499.73 for an overpayment of permanent disability indemnity in a specific injury case against indemnity owed in a cumulative trauma injury case. This decision overturned the original finding that such a credit would be inequitable. The WCAB determined the credit was permissible as the overpayment amount was small and would not significantly interrupt applicant's benefits.

Cumulative traumaSpecific injuryPermanent disability indemnityOverpaymentCreditApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorPrimary treating physicianFindings and AwardPetition for Reconsideration
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00635
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2019

Vicuna v. Vista Woods, LLC

Cristian Vicuna, the plaintiff, sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while engaged in roofing work for Vista Woods, LLC. He initiated a lawsuit against Vista Woods, LLC, Ruby Construction Services, LLC, and Builders Choice of New York, Inc., asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), alongside common-law negligence claims. The Supreme Court, Orange County, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting his motion for summary judgment on the liability issue under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Appellate Division, Second Department, upheld this decision, concluding that the plaintiff presented sufficient prima facie evidence through his deposition testimony that the ladder shifted unexpectedly, and the defendants failed to present a valid factual dispute.

Personal InjuryLadder FallLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentNondelegable DutyProximate CauseSafety DevicesRoofing Work
References
13
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03730
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Vista Eng'g Corp. v. Everest Indem. Ins. Co.

The case involves an insurance coverage dispute where Vista Engineering Corporation, a general contractor, sought a declaration from Everest Indemnity Insurance Company, its insurer, regarding its duty to defend and indemnify in an underlying personal injury action. The Supreme Court initially sided with Everest, ruling that New York's Insurance Law § 3420 (d) (2) timeliness requirements did not apply as the policy was issued outside New York. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified this decision. Citing the Court of Appeals' recent ruling in Carlson v American Intl. Group, Inc., which expanded the applicability of the Insurance Law to policies covering New York risks where the insured has a "substantial business presence" in the state, the Appellate Division found the record insufficient to determine if East Coast, the subcontractor, met this new criterion. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Supreme Court for further fact-finding to assess East Coast's business presence in New York.

Insurance Coverage DisputeAdditional InsuredDisclaimer of CoverageTimeliness of NoticeInsurance Law ApplicationSubstantial Business PresenceNew York RisksContractual IndemnificationGeneral ContractorSubcontractor Liability
References
14
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03670 [239 AD3d 1157]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2025

Matter of Lo (Go N.Y. Tours Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Yero Lo, a street ticket seller for Go New York Tours Inc. (TopView Sightseeing), applied for unemployment insurance benefits after TopView's closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department of Labor initially determined TopView was the employer and liable for contributions. An Administrative Law Judge overruled this, finding Lo and others were independent contractors. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed the ALJ, concluding that ticket sellers were employees, making TopView liable. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence of TopView's control over the ticket sellers, including training, providing equipment, setting parameters for sales, and restricting other employment.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorStreet Ticket SellerSightseeing Tour BusControl TestAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDepartment of LaborUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ash v. Richard J. Lynch & Co., Inc.

Vista Lanes Limited sued Richard J. Lynch & Co., Inc. in federal court in New York for a refund and damages related to a failed contract for bowling pinsetters. Lynch had previously filed a lawsuit against Vista and Lyons Bowling Center, Inc. in New Jersey state court concerning the same underlying transaction. Lynch subsequently filed a motion in the federal court to stay the proceedings, citing convenience, the risk of piecemeal litigation, and the earlier start of the New Jersey case. The federal court, presided over by District Judge Glasser, analyzed the motion using the Colorado River abstention doctrine factors. Despite some factors leaning slightly in Lynch's favor, the court concluded that Lynch had not demonstrated the "exceptional circumstances" required to warrant abstention or a stay of the federal action, especially considering Vista's willingness to arbitrate its federal claim. Consequently, Lynch's motion to stay the proceedings was denied.

Abstention DoctrineColorado River AbstentionParallel LitigationStay of ProceedingsFederal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionPiecemeal LitigationContract DisputeBowling PinsettersInter-jurisdictional Conflict
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chung v. Express Tours, Inc.

The defendants appealed an order denying their motion for partial summary judgment and a change of venue. The Appellate Court reversed the order, granting the defendants' motion, dismissing the causes of action by plaintiffs Jiang Yi Wang and Sandy Liu, and severing the action for the remaining plaintiffs. The Court found that Wang's and Liu's claims were barred by the Workers' Compensation Law because the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding Wang's employment as a tour guide for defendant Express Tours, Inc., and whether Express had obtained Workers’ Compensation insurance coverage for him. Consequently, the venue for the remaining plaintiffs was transferred from Kings County to Richmond County.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentVenue ChangeTour GuideEmployer LiabilityEvidentiary ValueAppellate ReviewKings CountyRichmond County
References
3
Case No. ADJ6662275
Regular
Jun 13, 2011

DARRIN BEAN vs. CITY OF CHULA VISTA

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation for a skin cancer injury. The applicant contests the testimony of an independent medical expert, Dr. Brigham, who offered an opinion on his impairment rating that differed from the agreed medical evaluator's (AME). The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, ruling that Dr. Brigham's testimony was inadmissible as he was neither an AME nor a treating physician and his testimony was not in rebuttal to formal rating instructions. Consequently, Dr. Brigham's testimony was stricken, the prior order was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings based solely on admissible medical evidence.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMA GuidesWhole Person ImpairmentPermanent Disability RatingClass 1 ImpairmentClass 2 ImpairmentClass 3 ImpairmentMedical Evidence AdmissibilityRebuttal Testimony
References
4
Case No. ADJ8914455
Regular
Dec 28, 2015

JEFFREY SMITH vs. CITY OF CHULA VISTA

This case concerns applicant Jeffrey Smith's Petition for Reconsideration of a finding that he did not sustain hypertensive cardiovascular disease arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted reconsideration, not on the merits, but due to a question of timely filing. The WCAB intends to dismiss the petition unless the applicant provides proof that it was filed within the statutory 20-day deadline. The applicant's electronic submission was received by the Appeals Board one day after the deadline, and no physical receipt stamp exists.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardHypertensive Cardiovascular DiseaseAgreed Medical ExaminerCumulative TraumaPermanent DisabilityStipulated AwardTimelinessJurisdictional
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 58 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