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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 1999

Tworek v. Mutual Housing Ass'n of New York, Inc.

The injured plaintiff, Cezary Tworek, an employee of Fresh Meadows Painting Corp., d/b/a Fresh Meadows Construction Contractors, suffered personal injuries after falling from a defective A-frame ladder while installing a structural beam. The incident occurred in a building owned by Mutual Housing Association of New York, Inc. (MHANY), which had contracted Fresh Meadows for renovation work. The Supreme Court granted Tworek partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), citing the uncontroverted evidence of the ladder's defective condition. Additionally, MHANY's cross-motion for summary judgment against Fresh Meadows on issues of contractual and common-law indemnification was granted, as MHANY's liability was vicarious, and Fresh Meadows was contractually responsible for safety equipment and controlled the work.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationVicarious LiabilityDefective EquipmentConstruction SiteEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. ADJ9442434
Regular
Oct 05, 2018

JUAN HERNANDEZ vs. TAYLOR FRESH FOODS, dba RIVER RANCH FRESH FOODS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, *Hernandez v. Taylor Fresh Foods*, involves a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed as untimely. The Board found that the petition was filed over 25 days after the administrative law judge's decision, exceeding the jurisdictional deadline. Proof of mailing was insufficient; the petition needed to be *received* by the Board within the statutory period. Consequently, the Board lacked the authority to review the petition's merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWCAB Rule 10507(a)(1)WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845(a)WCAB Rule 10392(a)Proof of Mailing InsufficientMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rymer v. Hagler
References
4
Case No. 526239
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2018

Matter of Papadakis v. Fresh Meadow Power NE LLC

Claimant Matt Papadakis sustained work-related injuries in January 2015 and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. Subsequently, surveillance footage and social media evidence revealed that the claimant had made false representations regarding his physical limitations and activities. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling that claimant violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and disqualified him from receiving future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the finding of a violation based on substantial evidence but remitted the matter to the Board because it failed to provide a reason for the imposition of the discretionary sanction disqualifying future wage replacement benefits, thus preventing appellate review.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsFalse StatementMaterial FactSurveillance EvidenceSocial Media EvidenceWage Replacement BenefitsDisqualificationAppellate ReviewRemittalJudicial Review
References
12
Case No. ADJ2966381 (SAC 0361383) ADJ3166685 (SAC 0361384)
Regular
Oct 31, 2008

CHESTER HODGE vs. DIMARE FRESH, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and increased the applicant's former attorney's fee from $600.00 to $1,200.00. This decision recognizes the attorney's successful efforts in invalidating an unfavorable Qualified Medical Evaluator report, which significantly improved the applicant's settlement position. Despite the applicant ultimately settling without further counsel, the Board found the increased fee to be equitable based on the attorney's substantial work and the benefit derived.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationAttorney's FeesLienQualified Medical EvaluatorCompromise and ReleaseTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityDeclaration of ReadinessExpedited Hearing
References
0
Case No. ADJ3166685
Regular
Jan 14, 2009

CHESTER HODGE vs. DIMARE FRESH, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied SCIF's petition for reconsideration regarding attorney fees. SCIF paid out all withheld funds before reconsideration was complete, accepting the risk of a later fee increase.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDDIMARE FRESHINC.STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDCHESTER HODGEADJ3166685M. Hollie RutkowskiPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings Award and Orders
References
1
Case No. ADJ7756309
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

Miguel Robles vs. Evolution Fresh, Inc., Amtrust North America

In **Robles v. Evolution Fresh, Inc.**, the applicant sought reconsideration of a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration. This action was taken to allow further study of the factual and legal issues presented in the case. The Board aims to issue a just and reasoned decision after thorough review and potential further proceedings.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Decisionstatutory time constraintsfactual and legal issuesjust and reasoned decisionDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersRonnie G. CaplaneDejdra E. Lowe
References
0
Case No. ADJ9181559
Regular
Sep 09, 2014

EXTRAIN CERVANTES vs. GARDEN FRESH RESTAURANT CORPORATION, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal filed by the defendant, Garden Fresh Restaurant Corporation and its insurer, Travelers Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was improperly filed against a non-final interlocutory order. The WCAB also denied removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant's attorney was admonished for filing the petition against a clearly non-final ruling.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalDenial of RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightLiabilityWCJ RulingAdministrative Law JudgeTravelers Insurance Company
References
6
Case No. ADJ9174788
Regular
Jun 09, 2004

JEFFREY ROGERS vs. FRESH AND EASY NEIGHBORHOOD MARKET, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant Fresh and Easy Neighborhood Market sought removal of an order setting a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) for April 1, 2014, alleging prejudice. However, the MSC proceeded as scheduled, and the defendant's petition for removal was not received by the Appeals Board until after the conference had concluded. Consequently, the petition was rendered moot. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition, noting the orderly progression of the case towards a trial set for June 17, 2014, which was limited to specific issues with discovery remaining open.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceElectronic Adjudication Management SystemAOE/COE conferenceWCJmootQualified Medical EvaluatorReport and RecommendationCumulative TraumaIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ8334684
Regular
Sep 09, 2013

ABEL RODRIGUEZ vs. RIVER RANCH FRESH FOODS, LLC, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant, Abel Rodriguez, filed a petition for reconsideration after an adverse ruling. The applicant alleged an industrial injury to his back sustained on December 31, 2011, while employed by River Ranch Fresh Foods, LLC. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the findings of the administrative law judge. The judge found the applicant’s testimony regarding the injury and its reporting to be credible and unrebutted, despite minor inconsistencies that did not materially impact his credibility. The Board gave great weight to the judge's credibility determinations, affirming the denial of reconsideration.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder DenyingCredibilityAOE/COELabor Code Section 3202.5Witness TestimonyImpeachmentMedical EvidenceCausation
References
1
Case No. ADJ10651475 ADJ10762532
Regular
Aug 30, 2018

ROSENDA RODRIGUEZ vs. FAIRWAY STAFFING, SOLVIS STAFFING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, FRESH GRILL FOODS, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address whether Solvis Staffing was a concurrent employer. The initial finding identified Fairway Staffing as the general employer and Fresh Grill Foods as the special employer for applicant's injuries. However, evidence suggests Solvis, as a Professional Employer Organization (PEO), may have also been an employer, creating a potential overlap in coverage. The Board found the record underdeveloped regarding Solvis' PEO role and payroll responsibility, thus remanding the case to the trial level for further investigation.

PEOProfessional Employer Organizationconcurrent employergeneral employerspecial employerJoint Findings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationWCJReport and Recommendationrescinded
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 62 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