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. ADJ6712588
Regular
Aug 12, 2010

MARIA NAVARRO vs. STAFF CHEX, AIG INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration for Applicant Maria Navarro, rescinding a prior award. The Board found a potential due process violation because the Applicant claimed she was never served with the Disability Evaluation Unit's (DEU) rating. As the DEU rating was not found in the official record of proceedings, the Board returned the case for further proceedings, ordering the DEU rating be properly added to the record and served on all parties. This ensures the Applicant has an opportunity to challenge the rating and exercise her due process rights.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityDue ProcessNoticeCross-examinationDisability Evaluation UnitDEUProof of Service
References
5
Case No. ADJ6820630
Regular
Mar 19, 2018

MARK COLLINS vs. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

The WCAB dismissed the Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order. The Board granted the Defendant's Petition for Removal to rescind the WCJ's order vacating submission and appointing a new physician. The WCJ erred by refusing to accept the AME's rating based on the Diagnosis-Related Estimate (DRE) method, as physicians have discretion to use the most accurate method. However, the AME's own deposition testimony indicated that the Range of Motion (ROM) method, mandated by the WCJ, would yield a higher impairment rating. Therefore, the matter is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to obtain a permanent disability rating using the existing record and potentially consulting a DEU rater.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Range of Motion (ROM) methodDiagnosis-Related Estimates (DRE) methodAmerican Medical Association's Guides (AMA Guides)Whole Person Impairment (WPI)cumulative traumaspinal injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
0
Case No. GRO 0033226
Regular
Aug 31, 2007

FRANCISCO CHAGOLLA vs. LOS DOS VALLES HARVESTING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant who sustained a lumbar spine injury and appealed a permanent disability rating. The applicant challenged the validity of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) and argued a vocational consultant's testimony rebutted the rating. The Board affirmed the original decision, finding the applicant failed to prove the PDRS was invalid and that the consultant's testimony did not rebut it. However, the Board reversed the denial of reimbursement for the consultant's expert testimony, finding him qualified as an expert in diminished future earning capacity.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDFrancisco ChagollaLos Dos Valles HarvestingState Compensation Insurance FundGRO 0033226Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationindustrial injurylumbar spinepermanent disabilitydiminished future earning capacity
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Domino v. Professional Consulting, Inc.

Gregory Domino, a carpenter employed by Carlin Contracting Co., Inc., was injured while working on a Village of Mount Kisco water treatment facility, allegedly due to the installation of floor panels hoisted by a crane owned by Smedley Crane Service, Inc. He and his wife commenced an action for personal injuries against Professional Consulting, Inc. (PCI), the construction manager, and Smedley. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to PCI, finding it was not a "contractor" or "owner" under Labor Law sections 240(1) or 241, nor liable under Labor Law section 200 or common-law negligence due to lack of supervisory authority. The appellate court affirmed this part of the decision, noting PCI's contracts expressly precluded it from supervising the work or safety procedures. However, the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to Smedley, as Smedley failed to establish it lacked authority to control or supervise the crane's rigging activity, thus the appellate court reversed that portion of the decision.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentReargumentConstruction Manager LiabilityCrane OperationWorker SafetyAgency LawStatutory LiabilityPremises Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2004

Claim of Shanbaum v. Alliance Consulting Group

The claimant, a software solution architect for Alliance Consulting Group, sustained an injury on September 11, 2001, while evacuating her apartment located across from her employer's World Trade Center office after the terrorist attacks. Her employer provided and paid for the apartment, which also served as a remote workspace equipped with a company laptop for accessing the main server. On the morning of the incident, the claimant had logged onto her computer, checked work emails, and begun preparing for a meeting. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the apartment functioned as an extension of the employer’s office and that the injury arose within the scope of her employment. This decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentAccidental InjuryTelecommutingHome OfficeWorld Trade Center AttacksSeptember 11Employer LiabilityArising Out Of EmploymentCourse Of Employment
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06389 [210 AD3d 1448]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2022

Smith v. MDA Consulting Engrs., PLLC

Nicholas Smith sued MDA Consulting Engineers, PLLC, for injuries sustained after falling from a foundation wall during construction, alleging Labor Law and common-law negligence violations. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court determined that the defendant was not an owner, contractor, or statutory agent of the Town, and therefore lacked supervisory control over the work or safety measures, absolving them of liability under Labor Law and common-law negligence. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewAgency RelationshipConstruction AccidentFall InjurySupervisory ControlCommon-Law NegligenceStatement of Material FactsStatutory Agent
References
17
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00218 [157 AD3d 1116]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2018

Matter of Joseph v. Atelier Consulting LLC

Claimant Brad Joseph, a construction worker, sought workers' compensation benefits after fracturing his foot while working at a construction site, naming George Villar/Atelier Consulting LLC as his employer. An investigation revealed Atelier was exempt from coverage and lacked workers' compensation insurance at the time of the accident. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined an employer-employee relationship existed between Atelier and Joseph, holding Omega Construction Group, Inc., the general contractor, responsible for awards and imposing a $36,000 penalty on Atelier for failing to secure insurance. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the employer-employee relationship and no error in the Board's refusal to consider an affidavit from Villar.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipConstruction AccidentInsurance CoveragePenalty ImpositionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAffidavit AdmissibilityCross-Examination RightsGeneral Contractor Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04821
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2023

Liu v. Whitestar Consulting & Contr., Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a prior order concerning a construction site accident where plaintiff Noah Liu fell 20 to 25 feet from an unguarded plywood ramp. The court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendants Moinian, Newmark, and Whitestar Consulting & Contracting, Inc. It was determined that the ramp, spanning a significant height differential and lacking safety devices, fell under the purview of Labor Law § 240 (1). Consequently, the defendants' motions to dismiss this claim were denied, and the plaintiffs were awarded summary judgment as to liability. Claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence were deemed academic in light of this ruling.

Construction accidentLabor Lawunguarded rampfall from heightsummary judgmentAppellate Divisionpersonal injurypremises liabilityelevation differentialsafety devices
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,969 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