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. 2023 NY Slip Op 23283
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2023

Jackson v. Citywide Mobile Response Corp.

Tray Jackson, an emergency medical technician (EMT), initiated a class action lawsuit against Citywide Mobile Response Corp., alleging multiple violations of the New York State Labor Law and NYCRR. Jackson claimed that the defendant failed to provide full wages, including overtime and spread of hours pay, and illegally deducted costs for mandatory uniforms and supplies from employee pay, resulting in wages below the minimum wage. The plaintiff sought class certification for a proposed class of approximately 200 current and former EMTs, paramedics, and drivers. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, presided over by Justice Fidel E. Gomez, granted the motion for class certification, finding that all statutory requirements under CPLR 901 and 902 were satisfied. The court certified a class comprising all individuals working for the defendant as drivers, EMTs, or paramedics in New York between December 30, 2015, and August 15, 2022.

Class Action CertificationLabor Law ViolationsUnpaid WagesOvertime PayUniform ReimbursementMinimum WageSpread of Hours PayWage NoticesIllegal Wage DeductionsEMT
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Forsythe v. New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services

Plaintiff Earl Forsythe, a pro se litigant, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), alleging racial discrimination in violation of Title VII. Forsythe, a security guard employed by Tristar Patrol Services, claimed that DCAS and its employees discriminated against him based on his race by causing his transfer from desirable posts at DCAS-managed facilities to less favorable ones, disrupting his childcare schedule. DCAS moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not Forsythe's direct employer and that Forsythe failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or an inference of discriminatory motive. The court determined that a factual issue existed regarding DCAS's "joint employer" liability if a transfer was racially motivated. However, the court found no admissible evidence to suggest that Forsythe's transfers were racially motivated, thus failing the "inference of discrimination" element of his prima facie case. Consequently, DCAS's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Forsythe's Title VII claim was dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentJoint Employer DoctrineAdverse Employment ActionPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkBurden-ShiftingPretext
References
40
Case No. 142 SSM 33
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2017

The Matter of the Claim of Lidia Burgos v. Citywide Central Insurance Program

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division. The decision concerned the claim of Lidia Burgos against Citywide Central Insurance Program and the Workers' Compensation Board. The Appellate Division had concluded that substantial evidence supported the Workers' Compensation Board's determinations regarding the claimant's degree of impairment and loss of wage-earning capacity. The Court of Appeals found no reason to overturn this conclusion.

Workers' CompensationImpairmentWage-earning CapacitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate DivisionClaimantInsurance ProgramBoard DeterminationJudicial ReviewAffirmed Order
References
1
Case No. ADJ9506148
Regular
Nov 05, 2019

RAUL GARCIA vs. RELIABLE RESOURCES, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of sanctions imposed on Citywide Scanning Services, Ani Balian, and Debbie Ketchens. The WCAB found that Balian and Ketchens lacked sufficient notice regarding the sanctions petition, thus reversing their personal liability. While Citywide's actions were deemed frivolous, the issue of attorney's fees for the defendant's representatives was deferred for further proceedings. The matter was returned to the trial level for these additional proceedings.

WCABCitywide Scanning ServicesAni BalianDebbie KetchensPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersWCJfrivolousbad faithsanctions
References
14
Case No. ADJ8944782
Regular
Sep 24, 2015

MARLYN HERNANDEZ vs. PINK HOUSE IMPORTS, LLC, PROCENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

Citywide Scanning Service, Inc. sought reconsideration of discovery orders denying its objections, but the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed its petition. The Board found that the orders were interlocutory and thus not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, Citywide, not being a party to the underlying case and not demonstrating lien claimant status, lacked standing to object or file the petition. The Board clarified that the proper procedure for contesting interlocutory discovery orders is a petition for removal, but only parties aggrieved may file it.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumStandingFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderDiscovery MattersLien ClaimantWCAB Rule 10843Petition for Removal
References
8
Case No. ADJ9499312
Regular
Oct 16, 2017

BENILDA VELASCO vs. FLOURISHING MEADOWS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the defendant sought reconsideration of an order allowing lien claims for medical records and copying services. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision regarding Citywide Scanning Service, finding their copying expenses were recoverable medical-legal costs and the defendant waived objections by failing to respond timely. However, the Board disallowed Vital Imaging Medical Group's lien, determining they failed to meet their burden of proving industrial causation for the applicant's injury. This amended decision means Citywide's lien is allowed, while Vital Imaging's is denied.

WCABreconsiderationlien claimsCitywide Scanning ServiceVital Imaging Medical Groupindustrial causationmedical-legal expensecontested claimexplanation of reviewburden of proof
References
0
Case No. ADJ9344199
Regular
Feb 20, 2020

ZARAGOZA, Lima vs. DENCO ENTERPRISES, WILLIAMSBURG NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, MEADOWBROOK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to review the findings of the administrative law judge (WCJ) concerning lien claimant Citywide Scanning Service's request for payment for copy services. The WCJ awarded Citywide $2,005.00 but denied reimbursement for a filing fee and dismissed other issues as moot. The WCAB rescinded the WCJ's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding that the WCJ did not adequately address the lien claimant's burden of proof regarding the reasonableness and necessity of its services. Furthermore, the WCAB indicated that the WCJ must provide a clear factual and legal basis for any awarded amount, rather than solely relying on the Copy Service Fee Schedule.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantReconsiderationFindings Orders and AwardCopy Services Fee ScheduleReasonable ValueBurden of ProofLabor Code 4622Explanation of Review60-day window
References
4
Case No. 533065
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2022

Matter of Kretunski v. Citywide Envtl. Servs.

Marian Kretunski, an asbestos handler, filed a workers' compensation claim for repetitive stress injuries. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) set the date of disablement as June 27, 2017, and disallowed the claim as untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, finding that substantial evidence did not support the Board's determination of the disablement date. The court noted that the initial medical treatment records did not establish a causal link between the claimant's injuries and employment for all affected body parts. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Occupational DiseaseRepetitive Stress InjuriesTimely ClaimDate of DisablementMedical EvidenceCausal RelationshipWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceRemittal
References
9
Case No. 233 AD3d 1218
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2024

Matter of Kretunski v. Citywide Envtl. Servs. LLC

Claimant Marian Kretunski appealed a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board denying his claim for benefits due to a causally-related occupational disease. The Board had found that the claimant failed to establish a recognizable link between his repetitive stress injuries and a distinctive feature of his job as an asbestos handler. This determination was based on conflicting testimonies regarding the claimant's job duties, with the employer's project manager providing a different account than the claimant. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's finding was supported by substantial evidence, particularly given the medical providers' limited understanding of the claimant's specific job duties and their inability to demonstrate a clear link to his employment.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsRepetitive Stress InjuriesCausationMedical EvidenceJob DutiesSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAsbestos HandlerCredibility Determination
References
11
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03576
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2018

Matter of Weinstein (City of New York Dept. of Citywide Admin. Servs.--Commr. of Labor)

Claimant Fred Weinstein, a sanitation worker for the City of New York, was terminated in September 2015 for providing false information on his employment application regarding prior felony and misdemeanor convictions. Initially, the Department of Labor denied his unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. However, an Administrative Law Judge reversed this decision, which was then affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, concluding that the employer's delay in taking action negated the disqualifying misconduct. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, holding that the employer's delay should not have been a factor in determining misconduct. The court found that substantial evidence did not support the Board's decision to award benefits and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment TerminationMisconductFalse ApplicationCriminal ConvictionsEmployer DelayAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAdministrative Decision Reversal
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 65 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