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. ADJ9843354, ADJ9340113
Regular
Feb 02, 2017

SANDRA CORTEZ vs. EMPLOYMENT RESOURCES GROUP, INC.; CLAIMS R.M.

This case involves an applicant, Sandra Cortez, and defendants Employment Resources Group, Inc. and Claims R.M. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Cortez's petition for reconsideration and denied her petition for removal. The Board found that the WCJ's decision addressed an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary issue, not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities. Removal was denied because there was no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The Board also clarified that a letter to an AME copied to the applicant's attorney was not an ex parte communication.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
9
Case No. 530744
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2021

Matter of Centeno v. Academy Group Props., LLC

Claimant Marvin Centeno was injured in 2015 while working on renovations in Connecticut and filed for workers' compensation. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found him an employee of uninsured employers Academy Group Properties, LLC and Yehuda Amar, holding them jointly and severally liable. The employers' initial application for Board review was denied due to noncompliance with procedural regulations (12 NYCRR 300.13 [b]). Following a WCLJ decision on the claimant's schedule loss of use (SLU), the employers again sought Board review, challenging the employment relationship and alleging lack of notice for the SLU hearing. The Workers' Compensation Board denied this second application, citing continued noncompliance with the regulatory requirements for specifying issues and grounds for appeal and objections made. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying review based on the incompleteness of the application.

Workers' Compensation LawAppellate DivisionBoard Review ApplicationProcedural NoncomplianceEmployment Relationship DisputeUninsured EmployerSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Due Process ViolationHearing NoticeAdministrative Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 1981

Claim of Kosak v. Dana Group, Inc.

This case involves appeals from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board. The central issue was whether the claimant was an employee of Dana Group, Inc. The Board found an employer-employee relationship, citing payroll stubs and checks from Dana Group, Inc. to the claimant. Despite being advised, the employer did not appear at a subsequent hearing. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's decision regarding the employer-employee relationship was deemed proper. The appellate court affirmed these decisions, concluding they were supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipPayroll EvidenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative ProceedingsConcurring OpinionBoard DecisionAppealClaimant
References
0
Case No. 2023-00083 (Index No. 11032/18)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2024

Miolan v. Milmar Food Group, LLC

Alquidania Miolan appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Orange County, which granted summary judgment to Milmar Food Group, LLC, and Milmar Food Group II, LLC. Miolan sought damages for personal injuries from a slip and fall at a facility operated by the Milmar defendants, where she was employed through a staffing agency. The Milmar defendants successfully argued that Miolan's claims were precluded by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions, asserting they were her 'special employer.' The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Milmar defendants had established, prima facie, their status as Miolan's special employer. Consequently, the court concluded that Miolan's claims were barred by the relevant Workers' Compensation Law provisions.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployerSummary JudgmentPersonal InjurySlip and FallAppellate ReviewExclusivity ProvisionStaffing AgencyOrange CountyPremises Liability
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00654 [179 AD3d 1414]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of Puli-Lopez v. Triple 888 Dev. Group LLC

Milton Puli-Lopez, a construction laborer, filed a workers' compensation claim after sustaining injuries, identifying Triple 888 Development Group LLC as his employer. The Workers' Compensation Board modified an earlier WCLJ decision, concluding that Puli-Lopez was solely employed by Triple 888 Development Group LLC and that no general/special employment relationship existed with East 119th Street Development LLC, despite shared ownership and property management. Triple 888 and East 119th appealed the Board's decision, arguing that the claimant's application for review was incomplete and that the WCLJ's findings were supported by evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in reviewing the claimant's application and concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination regarding sole employment.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipGeneral/Special EmployerConstruction InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidenceEmployer LiabilityAdministrative ProcedureRegulatory Compliance
References
2
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. ADJ12441930
Regular
Dec 21, 2020

MARIA ESQUIVEL vs. THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP

This case involves a worker's compensation claim for a psychiatric injury sustained by Maria Esquivel against The Permanente Medical Group. The Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, affirming the finding that Esquivel's injury was predominantly caused by actual events of employment, not merely a stage for personal issues. Evidence included coworker harassment, a restraining order against a coworker who stalked her daughter using company resources, and threats perceived as life-threatening. The Board distinguished this case from precedent where workplace gossip was deemed incidental, finding instead a direct causal link between Esquivel's employment and her injury.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationExecutive Order N-68-20Atascadero Unified School District v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Geredes)causal connectionpsychiatric injuryneuropsychological panel qualified medical examinationDr. Kyle Van Gaasbeekco-employeesGlenda Carrera
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05955 [174 AD3d 850]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2019

Davies v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Gerald Davies, was injured while pushing a cart of concrete over a plywood sheet that covered a hole at a construction site. He initiated an action against the premises operator, Simon Property Group, Inc., the general contractor, E.W. Howell Co., LLC, and the sidewalk removal company, Ruttura & Sons Construction Co., Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). E.W. Howell Co., LLC also filed a third-party action against Allstate Interior Demolition Corporation, the plaintiff's employer, seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court's initial order, which partially granted and denied various summary judgment motions, was subject to appeals and cross-appeals. The Appellate Division ultimately reversed the order in part, granting Ruttura & Sons Construction Co., Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, and denying Simon Property Group, Inc. and E.W. Howell Co., LLC.'s motion to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Simon Property Group, Inc. and E.W. Howell Co., LLC.'s motion concerning Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and contractual indemnification.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationElevation DifferentialScaffold LawIndustrial CodeSafe Work Environment
References
15
Case No. ADJ10009703 ADJ10043837
Regular
Feb 19, 2019

ZULAY DAVILA vs. EMPLOYERS RESOURCE GROUP, VENSURE HR, INC., LCF LIBERTY JR, LLC/SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, PROPORTION FOODS, LLC/REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision due to a due process violation. The WCJ had determined employment by ERG without providing ERG notice and an opportunity to be heard. The WCAB returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings to determine employment status. Issues of insurance coverage will be subject to mandatory arbitration once employment is established.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVENSURE HRSecurity National Insurance CompanyProportion FoodsLLCREDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANYBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIESAMTRUST NORTH AMERICAEMPLOYMENT RESOURCES GROUPINC.
References
15
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07574
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2017

Reaves v. Lakota Construction Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Duane Reaves commenced an action to recover for personal injuries sustained when he tripped over construction materials at his workplace. Defendants 214-27 Northern Boulevard, LLC, Bergon Construction Corp., and Lakota Construction Group, Inc. moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against them. The Supreme Court denied these motions, and the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. Issues of fact remained regarding whether 214-27 Northern Boulevard, LLC was an alter ego of the plaintiff's employer, thereby precluding a Workers' Compensation Law defense. Furthermore, factual disputes existed concerning the contributions of Lakota Construction Group, Inc. and Bergon Construction Corp. to the dangerous condition, and whether the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident, presenting an issue of comparative negligence.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawAlter Ego DoctrineComparative NegligencePremises LiabilityDangerous ConditionAppellate DivisionTripping Hazard
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 11,671 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