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. ADJ11535411
Regular
Jul 19, 2019

TERRI HARRISON vs. CITY OF TORRANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, overturning a prior ruling that presumed the applicant's injury compensable due to a late denial. The Board found that the defendant's denial letter, mailed on December 26, 2018, was timely because the 90-day presumption period expired on December 25, 2018, a court holiday, making the next business day the deadline. The employer's inability to definitively prove the claim form's receipt date led the Board to infer a receipt date of September 26, 2018, thus making the December 26 denial compliant with Labor Code section 5402. Consequently, the applicant's injury is not presumed compensable.

Labor Code section 5402presumption of compensabilitytimely denialclaim form filing dateCode of Civil Procedure section 1013WCAB Rule 10507(a)court holidaybusiness day extensionPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
2
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. 2025 NY Slip Op 04739 [241 AD3d 844]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2025

Rivera v. 26 W. 56, LLC

Nancy Rivera, an employee of Alba Services, Inc., was injured during a building renovation project when an HVAC duct fell on her while she was removing demolition debris. She commenced an action against the property owner, 26 W. 56, LLC, and the general contractor, Abeco Construction, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The defendants cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss this cause of action. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied their cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding whether the HVAC duct required securing and fell due to an inadequate safety device, and also failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of her injuries.

Falling ObjectDemolition AccidentConstruction Site SafetySummary JudgmentTriable Issues of FactWorker SafetyHVAC DuctProximate CauseAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2005

Urbina v. 26 Court Street Associates, LLC

Plaintiff Carlos Urbina, an electrician, sustained severe injuries after falling from a Baker scaffold at a construction site, leading to a fractured patella and multiple surgeries. He and his wife, Lucy Nunez, sued the premises owner, 26 Court Street Associates, LLC, the lessee/general contractor, Town Sports International, Inc. (TSI), and the drywall subcontractor, R & J Construction Corp. (R & J), alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law sections. The Supreme Court's judgment, awarding substantial damages, was appealed, specifically regarding awards for pain and suffering. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, conditionally reducing the awards for past and future pain and suffering, while affirming the grant of contractual indemnity to TSI and Court Street against R & J, based on R & J's contractual obligation to provide scaffolding.

Construction site injuryScaffolding accidentPersonal injury damagesContractual indemnificationLabor Law § 240(1)Damages modificationPain and suffering awardLost wages awardPatella fractureSubcontractor negligence
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 1980

Corbin, Ltd. v. State Division of Human Rights

The Human Rights Appeal Board's order, dated December 18, 1980, which upheld a finding of unlawful sex discrimination against petitioners, was unanimously annulled. The court granted the petition and dismissed the complaint, also denying the cross motion to enforce the Board's order. The decision found that the commissioner's determination lacked sufficient evidence. Specifically, the complainant was denied pregnancy-related disability benefits solely for not applying within the 26-week period stipulated by Workers’ Compensation Law § 217(1). The court deemed it speculative to assume petitioners would have denied an earlier application, noting a prior timely claim for similar benefits from this employer was paid.

Sex DiscriminationPregnancy DisabilityWorkers' Compensation LawTimeliness of ApplicationAdministrative ReviewEvidentiary StandardHuman Rights LawDisability BenefitsJudicial AnnulmentEmployment Discrimination
References
1
Case No. ADJ9141002 [death claim] ADJ6796445 [inter vivos]
Regular
Jan 16, 2014

RAMON PRIETO (Deceased) vs. APACHE AUTO, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, MEADOWBROOK/STAR INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a previous award. The amendment changed the cumulative trauma period for the deceased applicant's industrial injury to his heart and neurological system from December 2007-December 2008 to November 2008-December 26, 2008. This change was made to reflect the correct insurance carrier's coverage period. The Board otherwise affirmed the original findings regarding industrial injury and death.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boarddeath claiminter vivosindustrial injuryheart/cardiovascular systemneurologic systematrial fibrillationcumulative traumaauto wrecker salespersonZenith Insurance Company
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Patel v. Tal Transportation, Inc.

Claimant, a driver for Tal Transportation, Inc. (TTI), was injured in an automobile accident in April 1996 and filed for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found claimant to be an employee of TTI and established the case for accident, notice, and causal relationship for various injuries. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision on October 18, 2000, confirming the employment relationship. Subsequently, based on a stipulation with the Uninsured Employer’s Fund, the WCLJ awarded claimant a 17½% schedule loss of use of the left arm, which the Board affirmed on December 18, 2001. TTI appealed this latter decision, attempting to challenge the employment relationship, but the court found that TTI's appeal was untimely regarding the employment finding. Since TTI did not challenge the schedule loss of use award itself, the Board's December 18, 2001 decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseEmployment RelationshipTimeliness of AppealAutomobile AccidentUninsured Employer's FundDriverInjuryNew York Workers' Compensation BoardAdministrative Law
References
1
Case No. CA 12-00504
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2013

MILLER, DEBRA J. v. SAVARINO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

Plaintiff Debra J. Miller commenced a personal injury and wrongful death action after her decedent suffered a fatal heart attack at a building allegedly owned by defendant 26 Mississippi Street LLC, undergoing renovation. Defendant Savarino Construction Corporation was the construction manager. The decedent suffered a heart attack after ascending five flights of stairs to attach a temporary heat cannon. The Supreme Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that 26 Mississippi did not own the building at the relevant times and Savarino Construction had no control over the work or premises. The court also dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action due to plaintiff's failure to allege a violation of a qualifying Industrial Code provision.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Site SafetyLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Premises LiabilityOwner LiabilityContractor Liability
References
20
Case No. ADJ4102884
Regular
May 01, 2008

ERIC HASKINS vs. LAIDLAW EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

This case involves an applicant's petition for reconsideration that was dismissed as untimely. The applicant sought reconsideration of two prior decisions: a July 26, 2007 decision that rescinded an award and returned the case for further development, and a December 1, 2008 decision that dismissed a prior untimely petition. Both the July 2007 and December 2008 decisions were served by mail, triggering statutory time limits for filing a petition for reconsideration. The March 2, 2009 petition was filed well beyond these deadlines, rendering it untimely.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalWCJInterim OrderFinal OrderAggrieved PartySuccessive PetitionWrit of ReviewJurisdiction
References
6
Case No. 81 Civ. 3958 (KTD)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 1982

In Re Pension Plan for Emp. of Broadway Maint.

This case involves a dispute between the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation over the termination date of Broadway's employee pension plan. The PBGC initiated the lawsuit to be appointed statutory trustee, declare the plan terminated, and sought a termination date of March 26, 1981, while Broadway argued for a retroactive date prior to December 31, 1979. Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy acknowledged the appointment of the PBGC as trustee and the plan's termination, with the sole issue being the precise termination date. After considering the interests of the participants, the PBGC, and Broadway, and applying legal precedent, the court ultimately set December 5, 1980, as the earliest valid termination date. This date was chosen because it marked when the PBGC filed its original Proofs of Claim, signaling its clear intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee BenefitsBankruptcyPBGCStatutory TrusteeRetroactive Termination DateJudicial TerminationParticipant InterestsFinancial Distress
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,055 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