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. ADJ8548126
Regular
Oct 09, 2017

MATIAS PUGLISI vs. JAMES GALE KERRY, FIRST AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, CLA-MAR, LYNN DENNIS, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal because the WCJ's determination of employment with Cla-Mar and Lynn Dennis constituted a threshold issue. Therefore, reconsideration, not removal, was the proper remedy. The Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report and reasoning. The order dismisses removal and denies reconsideration in this workers' compensation case.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportfinal ordersubstantive rightliabilitythreshold issueemployment relationshipstatute of limitations
References
3
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01036 [180 AD3d 515]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2020

Ortiz v. Mar-Can Transp. Co., Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order granting defendants Mar-Can Transportation Co., Inc. and Ramonita Matos' motion to renew their summary judgment motion and dismiss the complaint. The court found the lower court properly exercised its discretion in granting renewal to correct a procedural error, as defendants had a right to enforce a prior preclusion order against the plaintiff, Rosalinda Ortiz. Defendants also made a prima facie showing that the action was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions, establishing that Ortiz was Mar-Can's special employee at the time of the bus accident. Since Ortiz was precluded from submitting opposition, the dismissal was proper.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivitySpecial Employee DoctrineSummary Judgment RenewalProcedural Error CorrectionPreclusion Order EnforcementAppellate ReviewEmployment LiabilityBus Accident ClaimsNew York Appellate DivisionCivil Procedure
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2001

Silva v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency

Jose Silva, an employee of Mar Jea Equipment, Inc., was allegedly injured during construction work on property owned by the Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency. Silva sued the Agency for personal injuries. The Agency, in turn, initiated a third-party action against Mar Jea for indemnification. Mar Jea moved to dismiss this third-party complaint, arguing that the Agency's claim for common-law indemnification was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Although the Agency contended it had a claim for contractual indemnification, the subcontract between Mar Jea and the general contractor required written consent from the Agency, which was never obtained. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted Mar Jea's motion to dismiss, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSubcontractCondition PrecedentWorkers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Isik Jewelry v. Mars Media, Inc.

Plaintiff Isik Jewelry rented valuable jewelry to music artist Albert Johnson, also known as Prodigy, for a video shoot in Queensbridge, New York. During the second day of filming, Johnson left the site wearing the jewelry and was subsequently robbed at gunpoint, resulting in the loss of the items. Isik Jewelry filed a lawsuit against Johnson, LOUD Records, Mars Media, and XL Specialty Insurance Company, alleging negligence, breach of bailment, conversion, and breach of contract. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Johnson on all claims against him and for LOUD Records on the direct negligence claim. However, the Court granted summary judgment for Isik Jewelry against Mars Media and XL Specialty Insurance Company for breach of contract, finding Mars Media breached its obligation to provide adequate insurance.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceBailment LawConversionBreach of ContractInsurance PolicyThird-Party BeneficiaryRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorJewelry Theft
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Skripek v. Skripek

John Sog, a steelworker, was injured by a falling steel joist at a construction site in Hauppauge while working for H-T Steel Erectors, Inc., a subcontractor for Wen-Mar Construction Management Company, Inc., which was hired by the building owner, D & A Enterprises, Inc. Sog moved for partial summary judgment against D & A and Wen-Mar under Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide safety devices. The Supreme Court initially denied the motion, citing no evidence of Sog working at an elevated level. The appellate court reversed this decision, clarifying that the statute's protection extends to gravity-related hazards from falling objects, regardless of the worker's elevation. The court granted Sog's motion, finding the defendants failed to rebut evidence of a statutory duty breach and proximate cause, and affirmed Wen-Mar's status as a statutory agent.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentFalling ObjectLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory DutyProximate CauseElevated WorkGravity Hazards
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Turner v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.

David Turner sued General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC) alleging violations of the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA) and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Turner claimed GMAC failed to disclose that it earned non-interest benefits, referred to as 'earnings credits,' from his security deposit. GMAC moved for summary judgment, asserting it met disclosure obligations and did not earn interest, but rather received credits to offset bank fees. The court determined that earnings credits were not equivalent to interest and did not constitute 'charges payable by the lessee' or 'security interest' requiring disclosure under the CLA. Consequently, the court granted GMAC's motion for summary judgment on the CLA claim, denied Turner's partial summary judgment motion, and dismissed his state-law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Turner's motion for class action certification was denied as moot.

Consumer Leasing ActUCCSecurity DepositEarnings CreditsDisclosure RequirementsSummary JudgmentFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsClass ActionAutomobile Lease
References
18
Case No. ADJ3883893 (NOR 0153553)
Regular
Apr 29, 2016

Steven Scoggins vs. Ultra-Mar, Inc., Broadspire

This case concerns a lien for radiology services that was allowed by a WCJ despite the defendant claiming defective service. The defendant argued they never received proper notice of the lien claim or the subsequent order allowing it due to outdated address information in the system. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the order allowing the lien, and returned the case to the trial level. This action was based on defective service of the order, making the defendant's petition for reconsideration timely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Allowing LienNotice of Intention (NIT)Compromise and Release (OACR)EAMSService of ProcessOfficial Address RecordWCJLien Conference
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perreras v. Cia De Nav Mar Netumar

Plaintiff Emanuel Perreras (later identified as Emilio Ferreras) sued an unnamed shipowner for injuries sustained as a longshoreman. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting the claim was automatically assigned to the plaintiff's employer under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) because the plaintiff failed to initiate suit within six months of receiving a compensation award. The court confirmed that a claims examiner's memorandum constituted a valid award, triggering the six-month limitation period. However, the plaintiff argued that the claim was subsequently reassigned to him, providing a ratification letter from the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, the employer's workers' compensation carrier. Citing federal precedents, the court ruled that this ratification effectively revested the cause of action in the plaintiff, making him the real party in interest. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied.

Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActLHWCAAssignment of ClaimReal Party in InterestRatificationMotion to DismissCPLR 3211Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 17(a)Workers' Compensation CarrierShipowner Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ferreras v. Cia De Nav Mar Netumar

Plaintiff, a longshoreman named Perreras, sued a shipowner for injuries. He had received compensation benefits based on an informal conference memorandum. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the action was time-barred and the claim automatically assigned to the employer under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act due to acceptance of compensation. The court, on rehearing and guided by Pallas Shipping Agency v Duris, determined that an assignment of action against a third party under the Act only occurs upon acceptance of compensation under a formal compensation order, not an informal memorandum. As no formal order was filed, the automatic assignment was not triggered. Consequently, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint was again denied, with leave to renew if proof of a formal compensation order is presented.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActWorkers' CompensationThird-party actionAssignment of claimFormal compensation orderInformal conference memorandumMotion to dismissCPLR 3211Statute of limitationsElection of remedies
References
6
Case No. ADJ10217031
Regular
Mar 02, 2016

CLORIA PARAGNAT vs. SUN MAR HEALTHCARE, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board found the petition was untimely filed, as it was submitted more than 20 days after the Applicant was personally served with the WCJ's decision. The Board emphasized that timely filing requires the petition to be received by the WCAB within the statutory period, not merely mailed. As the filing deadline is jurisdictional, the Board lacked the authority to consider the late petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationPersonal ServiceTimelinessLabor Code § 5903WCAB Rule 10507Jurisdictional LimitDismissed PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeUntimely Filing
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 28 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