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. 06-cv-05285
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2014

Muszkatel v. 90 Church Street Ltd. Partnership

Jerzy Muszkatel, an asbestos abatement worker, sued multiple defendants (owners, environmental consultants, contractors, subcontractors) for common law negligence and violations of New York Labor Law sections 200 and 241(6), alleging injuries from working in buildings near the World Trade Center post-9/11 due to inadequate safety equipment and procedures for "alkaline-based" dust. The District Court, presided by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, denied in part and granted in part the defendants' motions for summary judgment. The court found triable issues of fact regarding supervisory control and premises liability under Labor Law 200 for most defendants across multiple sites (2 World Financial Center, 90 Church Street, 140 West Street). It also sustained Section 241(6) claims for these sites concerning specific Industrial Code violations (23-1.5(c)(3), 23-1.7(h), 1.8(c)(4), 23-1.8(b)(l)), but dismissed claims for work at 101 Barclay Street and 7 Dey Street due to lack of "construction, excavation or demolition" activity, and dismissed all claims against Indoor Environmental Technologies, Inc.

asbestos abatementWorld Trade Center9/11 clean-upsummary judgmentNew York Labor Lawnegligenceindustrial code violationsoccupational hazardspersonal protective equipmentsite safety
References
29
Case No. ADJ17819410; ADJ17819411
Regular
Jul 07, 2025

GUILHERME GUIMARAES vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SEDGWICK

Defendant County of Los Angeles sought reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Award issued on March 18, 2025, by a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The WCJ had ruled that applicant Guilherme Guimaraes was entitled to separate salary continuation benefits under Labor Code section 4850 for two distinct injuries, even if some periods of disability overlapped. The defendant contended that the WCJ erred in awarding a separate period of benefits, arguing that the existence of common body parts between claims should disqualify the applicant from additional benefits once the initial 52 weeks were paid. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, after reviewing the arguments and the WCJ's report, denied the petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the WCJ's reasoning, emphasizing that entitlement to Section 4850 benefits is determined by the time period and reason for disability per claim, consistent with wage replacement policy, rather than merely by overlapping body parts.

Labor Code section 4850Salary continuation benefitsCumulative traumaSpecific injuryOverlapping disabilityConcurrent disabilityWage replacementTemporary total disabilityFoster v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.Joint Findings and Award
References
4
Case No. ADJ14263093
Regular
Apr 12, 2023

CECILIA OJEDA vs. AMY'S KITCHEN, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer: The applicant claimed cumulative injury to her neck, bilateral wrists, shoulders, and upper extremities, which the employer initially denied for all body parts except the neck. The WCJ found injury to all claimed body parts, relying on treating physicians' reports, and found the QME's reports unsubstantial due to inconsistencies and admissions of uncertainty during deposition. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the QME's opinion was substantial evidence regarding injured body parts and permanent disability. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the QME's testimony was too speculative and contradictory to constitute substantial evidence for the disputed body parts.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardOrthopedic Qualified Medical Examiner (QME)Substantial EvidenceCumulative InjuryBilateral WristsBilateral ShouldersBilateral Upper ExtremitiesCervical Radiculopathy
References
3
Case No. 13-71700
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Trustees v. Kern (In re Kern)

The Plaintiffs, the Board of Trustees of benefit funds under ERISA, sought to declare debts owed by Defendant Richard Kern, principal owner of Cool Sheetmetal, Inc. (CSI), non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The core issue was whether monies deducted from employee paychecks but not remitted to the benefit funds constituted non-dischargeable debts under § 523(a)(4) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court ruled that monies deducted for a vacation fund are non-dischargeable because they were subject to a statutory trust, Kern acted as a fiduciary, and committed defalcation. However, deductions for union assessments and political action league (PAL) funds were deemed dischargeable, as no statutory trust was established for these. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' claim under § 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury was dismissed. The Court granted summary judgment in part for Plaintiffs regarding the Vacation Fund deductions, with the exact amount to be determined at trial, and granted summary judgment in part for Defendant on the other claims.

BankruptcyNon-dischargeabilityERISAFiduciary DutyDefalcationSummary JudgmentEmployee ContributionsVacation FundUnion AssessmentsPolitical Action League (PAL)
References
10
Case No. 06-cv-01521
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2014

Kowalewski v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas

This case involves claims by Tadeusz Kowalewski and his wife, Beata Kowalewski, against numerous defendants for common law negligence and New York Labor Law violations. The claims stem from injuries Tadeusz allegedly sustained while performing post-9/11 abatement work in several buildings around the World Trade Center site. Defendants, including property owners, environmental consultants, and contractors, moved for summary judgment. The court granted dismissal for several defendants, including BMS, TIC, the City of New York, IET, and architectural firms WF Collins and Syska Hennessy. However, motions by Hillmann, DBTCA, Verizon, Liberty View, Weston, and Merrill Lynch were denied in part, allowing claims under Labor Law sections 200 and some under 241(6) to proceed based on triable issues of fact regarding supervisory control, premises liability, and specific Industrial Code violations related to structural damage and inadequate protective equipment during remediation efforts.

World Trade Center9/11 attacksasbestos abatementtoxic dust exposureNew York Labor Law Section 200New York Labor Law Section 241(6)summary judgmentpremises liabilityconstruction site safetypersonal protective equipment
References
25
Case No. ADJ10771579
Regular
Aug 08, 2018

Gabriel Ruano vs. Mayekawa USA, SOMPO JAPAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, BROADSPIRE

This case involved a worker claiming industrial injury to multiple body parts. The Appeals Board granted the employer's petition for reconsideration to correct the Findings of Fact. The Board amended the Findings to accurately reflect all injured body parts, including the psyche, and removed an incorrectly listed body part. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the original decision with these specified amendments.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factsubstantial evidencemedical reportsprimary treating physicianBal S. Grewal Ph.D.Report and Recommendationinjured body partspsychecervical spine
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Konopczynski v. Adf Constr. Corp.

Plaintiff brought a Labor Law and common-law negligence action for injuries sustained after tripping in a floor depression at a worksite. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, agreeing that the floor depressions were an integral part of the construction. However, the court reinstated the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding that the defendant failed to prove a lack of constructive notice regarding the hazardous conditions, despite the open and obvious nature of the depression.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentTripping HazardSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeComparative FaultLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law Negligence
References
6
Case No. ADJ9312928
Regular
Sep 11, 2019

Jeffrey DaVanon vs. Oakland Athletics, ACE Insurance Company, Sedgwick Claims Management

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The applicant, a former professional athlete, claimed cumulative trauma injury to multiple body parts, including gastrointestinal issues, neurological problems, and a sleep disorder not initially identified. The Board found that the WCJ erred by excluding medical evidence for these later-identified body parts, as they were included in the parties' stipulations and could have arisen or worsened after the applicant's deposition. The case is returned for further proceedings, allowing admission of relevant medical records and deferring final decisions on disputed body parts and permanent disability.

Mandatory Settlement ConferencePetition for ReconsiderationCumulative TraumaProfessional AthleteStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5405Labor Code Section 5412Discovery CloseBifurcationIndependent Medical Evaluator
References
6
Case No. ADJ7288330
Regular
Oct 03, 2016

GLORIA BENITEZ vs. NEWPORT SUBACUTE HEALTH CARE CENTER, ALASKA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant, Gloria Benitez, sought to reopen her workers' compensation claim to include injury to additional body parts beyond her cervical spine and psyche. The original award found injury only to the cervical spine and psyche, with a 19% permanent disability rating for the cervical spine. While the WCJ's initial decision denied injury to additional body parts, the Board granted reconsideration. The Board amended the original findings to defer the issue of injury to the alleged additional body parts, while affirming other aspects of the WCJ's order, including the appointment of a regular physician to evaluate new and further disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderNew and Further DisabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerRegular PhysicianLabor Code Section 5410Petition to ReopenIndustrial InjuryCervical Spine
References
4
Case No. ADJ18492736
Regular
Sep 30, 2025

MARIA HERNANDEZ vs. VALLARTA FOOD ENTERPRISES, INC.; SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed a petition for reconsideration filed by Safety National Insurance, challenging a WCJ's finding that Maria Hernandez sustained injury to multiple body parts. The Board found the treating physician's report lacked substantial medical evidence due to inadequate records and a flawed job description. Additionally, the Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) reports were incomplete and inconsistent regarding all body parts except the left hand. Consequently, the Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original decision, and substituted new findings, determining that Hernandez sustained a cumulative injury only to her left hand while deferring the issue of injury to other body parts for further development of the record.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Ordersubstantial medical evidenceQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)cumulative traumabilateral shoulderswristshandsleft hand injury
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 3,362 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