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 01881 [215 AD3d 722]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2023

Andrade v. Bergen Beach 26, LLC

The plaintiff, Freddy Andrade, appealed an order denying his motion for summary judgment on liability against Bergen Beach 26, LLC, for a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Andrade was allegedly injured after falling from a ladder at a construction site where his employer was a subcontractor. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the plaintiff's motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as triable issues of fact existed regarding whether Labor Law § 240 (1) was violated and if such a violation was the proximate cause of his injuries.

Personal InjuryLadder FallConstruction SiteLabor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityAppellate ReviewPrima FacieTriable Issues of FactSubcontractor
References
6
Case No. 08-23-00177-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2024

Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Claudia Gomez

The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) terminated Claudia Gomez, alleging she physically assaulted a coworker; Gomez contended the termination was discriminatory based on age, gender, and disability. The trial court denied DADS's plea to the jurisdiction regarding Gomez's discrimination claims. On appeal, the court found Gomez failed to present evidence of a similarly situated comparator, thus not establishing a prima facie case for age, gender, or disability discrimination. Furthermore, Gomez did not demonstrate that DADS's stated reason for termination was a pretext for discrimination. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed Gomez's claims for lack of jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationEmployment LawTerminationPretextPrima Facie CaseSovereign ImmunityTexas Labor Code
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Ruben G. (Claudia G.)

The petitioner appealed orders from the Family Court, Kings County, which dismissed petitions filed under Family Court Act article 10 alleging neglect due to domestic violence against Claudia G. and Leon T. The appellate court reversed the December 4, 2014, order, finding that the petitioner had established a prima facie case of neglect against both respondents. Evidence included Claudia G.'s admission to an emergency room social worker that the children witnessed Leon T. abusing her, and Claudia G.'s failure to follow a safety plan. The petitions were reinstated, and the case was remitted to the Family Court for further proceedings.

Family LawChild NeglectDomestic ViolencePrima Facie CaseFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewOrder ReversalCase RemittalEvidence AdmissibilityWitness Testimony
References
6
Case No. ADJ11377591
Regular
Feb 10, 2023

MARIA ANDRADE (Deceased) vs. DELTA AIRLINES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involved a worker's compensation settlement for Maria Andrade against Delta Airlines, which was submitted for approval shortly before Ms. Andrade's death. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration of the administrative law judge's (WCJ) order finding the Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement unenforceable. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning, which concluded that the applicant's death before the C&R was approved constituted a material change in circumstances, rendering the agreement invalid as liability for future medical care ceased. The Board cited precedent emphasizing their discretion in approving C&Rs and highlighted that the settlement primarily addressed future medical care that would no longer be needed.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionDelta AirlinesACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANYSEDGWICK CMSAdjudication NumberWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeOpinion and OrderCompromise and Release
References
7
Case No. ADJ629563 (LAO 0880925)
Regular
Aug 06, 2012

CLAUDIA ANDRADE vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed a prior order after granting reconsideration and reviewing the record. The WCAB adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's Report and Recommendation denying the petition for reconsideration. While the WCAB declined to issue sanctions against the lien claimant, they admonished them to improve their calendaring system and utilize available resources for case appearances.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSanctionsLien ClaimantElectronic Adjudication Management SystemWCJAffirmOrderSouthern California EdisonClaudia Andrade
References
0
Case No. ADJ629563
Regular
Jun 10, 2014

CLAUDIA ANDRADE vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the trial judge's findings and returned the case for further proceedings due to a denial of due process. The trial judge decided issues not presented by the parties, preventing them from offering evidence or arguing their case. The Board found the trial judge's framing of the sole issue as "good cause to violate the MPN agreement" was insufficient and failed to resolve the lien claim's ultimate entitlement to recovery. The case will be returned to the trial level to properly frame all contested issues and allow parties to present evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPNLien ClaimantDue ProcessFindings and OrdersReconsiderationExpedited HearingCompromise and ReleaseLien Trial
References
9
Case No. ADJ7271886
Regular
Apr 14, 2011

CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ vs. BHALLA & ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Claudia Hernandez's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted and incorporated the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCALJ). They also gave great weight to the WCALJ's credibility findings, as is standard practice. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was formally denied.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardBHALLA & ASSOCIATESADJ7271886Order Denying ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ reportcredibility findingGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Ronnie G. Caplane
References
1
Case No. ADJ7110968
Regular
Apr 09, 2013

CLAUDIA LARA vs. NORTHGATE MARKET, ESIS

This case involves Claudia Lara, applicant, versus Northgate Market and ESIS, defendants. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued an Order Dismissing Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal is due to the petitioner having withdrawn their petition for reconsideration of the January 13, 2012 decision. Therefore, the petition has been formally dismissed by the Board.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawn PetitionDismissed OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantNorthgate MarketESISPomona District OfficeJanuary 13 2012 decision
References
0
Case No. ADJ3357951
Regular
Jul 02, 2013

BENNY ANDRADE vs. KELLY SERVICES, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Benny Andrade's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on May 15, 2013, which was over 25 days after the WCJ's decision was served on May 23, 2008. Labor Code section 5903 sets a strict 20-day deadline for reconsideration petitions, extendable by five days for mailing. As the deadline is jurisdictional, the Board lacked the power to grant the untimely petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessLabor Code 5903JurisdictionalWCJ DecisionAppeals BoardDismissedService of OrderFiling DateMail Extension
References
0
Case No. ADJ4207158 (LAO 0879876) ADJ4078088 (LAO 0879877)
Regular
Feb 18, 2011

MARIA ANDRADE vs. DIAMOND CONTRACT SERVICES

In *Andrade v. Diamond Contract Services*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's Petition for Removal. The WCAB overturned a prior order that had denied the defendant's request to have the applicant examined by their vocational expert. The Board found that fundamental fairness, through mutual discovery, required the applicant to submit to the evaluation. Therefore, the WCAB rescinded the prior order and directed the applicant to be examined by the defendant's vocational expert.

Petition for RemovalVocational ExpertRebuttal EvidenceDue ProcessLabor Code Section 5704DiscoveryFundamental FairnessAgreed Medical EvaluatorKeith WilkinsonCarmen Roman
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 60 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