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 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The case involves an appeal by Active Transport Services (ATS) from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board ruled that Godwin Iwuchukwu, a delivery driver for ATS, was an employee and eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and that ATS was liable for contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed these decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, based on ATS's control over drivers, and that Iwuchukwu had not voluntarily left employment without good cause, as he cited a lack of work.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriverLogistics BrokerSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Benefits EligibilityVoluntary Leaving EmploymentDisqualifying MisconductAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 2016-1618 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2019

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case concerns an appeal by Active Care Medical Supply Corp. against American Transit Ins. Co. regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, an assignee of Luciano Ernesto, sought summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved to either dismiss the complaint or hold the action in abeyance. The defendant argued that Luciano Ernesto might be eligible for workers' compensation benefits, thus requiring a determination from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Civil Court granted the defendant's cross-motion to hold the action in abeyance. The Appellate Term affirmed this decision, reiterating that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law and that courts should defer to the Board's determination.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceAppellate TermSummary JudgmentEligibility DisputeFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance CoverageAssignor-Assignee
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 1994

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Active Glass Corp. sought to enjoin a labor arbitration demanded by Iron Union and Iron Funds, proposing instead a multiparty arbitration with Glaziers and Carpenters unions and their respective funds. Iron cross-moved to compel bilateral arbitration with Active, while Glaziers and Carpenters sought dismissal of Active's petition. The court confirmed the existence of an arbitration agreement between Active and Iron for the underlying dispute. Citing recent Second Circuit precedent, the court ruled it lacked authority to compel multiparty arbitration absent the parties' explicit consent. Consequently, Active's motion for preliminary injunction and multiparty arbitration was denied, and Iron's motion to compel bilateral arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentMultiparty ArbitrationBilateral ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictional DisputeContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Donald F. Rhudy sued his former employer, Diamond Shamrock Corporation, for wrongful discharge under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act, alleging retaliation for filing a worker's compensation claim. Diamond Shamrock moved for summary judgment, arguing federal preemption under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) as Rhudy's actions were arguably 'concerted activity'. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the action within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. The appellate court reversed, concluding that Rhudy's individual action of filing a worker's compensation claim did not constitute 'concerted activity' under NLRA section 7, and thus federal law did not preempt his state law claim. The case was remanded for a trial on the merits.

Worker's CompensationWrongful DischargeFederal PreemptionNational Labor Relations ActConcerted ActivitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawLabor DisputeEmployer Retaliation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

A union sought to arbitrate a claim that a company violated an anti-discrimination provision of their collective bargaining agreement by not providing pension credits for time spent on union activities beyond the hours for which the company had agreed to pay. The collective bargaining agreement allowed for arbitration of disputes over its provisions but was silent on pensions. The court ruled that no bona fide dispute existed, as the anti-discrimination clause could not be used to force a change in a separate agreement about paid union time. The court reasoned that providing pension credits for unpaid union activity would discriminate in favor of union representatives, an obligation the company did not have. Therefore, there was no valid ground for arbitration, and the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationPension CreditsAnti-Discrimination ClauseUnion ActivityEmployee BenefitsLabor DisputeAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationNew York State Law
References
2
Case No. ADJ8 156794
Regular
Jan 12, 2017

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding an order that dismissed a lien claim due to a failure to pay a $100 lien activation fee. The lien claimant, Premier Psychological Services (PPS), claims computer issues prevented timely payment. While the WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration, the WCAB may rescind the dismissal if PPS pays the activation fee within ten days of this notice. If paid, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code section 4903.06WCABadministrative law judgereconsiderationrescissiondismissallien conferenceCompromise and Releaseindustrial injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ6981750
Regular
Jan 13, 2017

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case concerns a lien claimant's failure to pay a $100.00 lien activation fee required by Labor Code section 4903.06 by the date of a lien conference. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding the order dismissing the lien, but only if the fee is paid within ten days of this notice. The WCAB's intention is based on a court order allowing lien activation fees to be paid between November 9, 2015, and December 31, 2015, and the lien claimant's assertion of computer problems. If payment is received, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code Section 4903.06ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimWCJDWCAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionNinth CircuitVacating injunction
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07528
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2017

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The plaintiff, Mark Perez, moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. The court properly granted this motion, finding Live Nation was an "owner" of the accident site due to its licensee role at Jones Beach Marine Theatre, giving it sole authority over premises operation and maintenance, including worker safety. The court also correctly determined that the plaintiff was engaged in the "alteration" of a structure when he fell while setting up a truss system, which extended the booth's height and required significant construction. This work was deemed an alteration, not merely a decorative modification. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentLiabilityOwner LiabilityLicensee ResponsibilityWorkplace SafetyConstruction AccidentFall from HeightAlteration of StructureTruss System
References
8
Case No. 2016-189 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2018

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. The court found that defendant had established that there was no coverage for no-fault benefits since defendant had demonstrated that the Workers' Compensation Board had awarded workers' compensation benefits to plaintiff's assignor for injuries she had sustained in the accident which gave rise to the claims at issue. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, a lack of coverage defense may be raised without regard to any issue as to the propriety or timeliness of an insurer's denial of claim form. The papers submitted by defendant in support of its motion, and by plaintiff in support of its cross motion, established that plaintiff had submitted claims for workers' compensation benefits and that the Workers' Compensation Board had awarded plaintiff's assignor workers' compensation benefits for injuries she had sustained in the accident at issue. As plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact, the order is affirmed.

No-fault benefitsSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BoardLack of coverage defenseAssignee claimsAppellate ReviewFirst-party benefitsInsurance claimsTriable issue of factCivil Court
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This is an appeal from jury convictions for two counts of engaging in organized criminal activity, specifically bribery and aggravated theft. The Appellant, Albert Rodriguez, owner of Lamco, was found guilty of orchestrating a kickback scheme involving fraudulent invoices with the El Paso Independent School District (EPISD) and bribing EPISD employees. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, addressing numerous legal issues raised by Rodriguez, including the sufficiency of accomplice witness testimony, the denial of severance for the criminal counts, issues with subpoenas, indictment defects, jury charge instructions, and the admissibility of evidence summaries. The court found no reversible error in the trial court's proceedings.

Criminal appealOrganized crimeBriberyAggravated theftFraudKickbacksAccomplice testimonySufficiency of evidenceJury chargeTrial procedure
References
91
Showing 1-10 of 1,869 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