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

Pereira v. St. Joseph's Cemetery

The plaintiff, a cemetery worker named Pereira, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which dismissed his personal injury complaint against St. Joseph’s Cemetery, Church of St. Joseph, and the Archdiocese of New York, based on res judicata. Pereira had previously filed a similar action alleging intentional tort, but it was dismissed on appeal because the allegations did not meet the intentional tort exception to Workers' Compensation Law § 29. In the current second action, Pereira rephrased his intentional tort allegations, and the defendants again moved to dismiss, this time citing res judicata, which the Supreme Court granted. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that a prior dismissal for failure to state a cause of action is generally not on the merits and therefore does not trigger the doctrine of res judicata. Consequently, the appellate court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, allowing the plaintiff's second action to proceed.

Personal InjuryRes JudicataWorkers' Compensation LawIntentional TortMotion to DismissFailure to State a Cause of ActionAppellate ReversalPrior DismissalOn the MeritsCemetery Worker
References
6
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04714 [140 AD3d 958]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2016

Matter of Klein v. Pereira

This case involves a proceeding initiated by Abraham Klein to confirm an arbitration award dated March 31, 2009. John S. Pereira, as Bankruptcy Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Christine Persaud, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the petition to confirm the award and denied his motion to vacate it. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, concluding that the appellant failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator had exceeded their power. The court noted that the arbitration clause was broad, granting the arbitrator authority to resolve 'any business dispute.'

arbitration awardCPLR article 75vacate arbitrationconfirm arbitrationarbitrator's powerappellate reviewKings Countybusiness disputebankruptcy trusteeagreement terms
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04342 [151 AD3d 1154]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2017

Claim of Pereira-Jersey v. Rockland Community College

Renee Pereira-Jersey, a purchasing agent, filed for workers' compensation benefits in February 2008 due to conditions like breathing difficulties and headaches resulting from workplace mold exposure. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established a work-related injury, later amending the claim to include a consequential cognitive adjustment disorder and awarding reduced earnings for a three-day work week, which was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The employer, Rockland Community College, repeatedly challenged further reduced earnings awards. However, the WCLJ and Board found substantial evidence supporting claimant's causally-related disability preventing full-time work. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its resolution of conflicting medical evidence and finding no abuse of discretion in the Board not considering an issue not raised before the WCLJ.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsMold Exposure InjuryReduced EarningsCognitive ImpairmentOccupational AsthmaChronic SinusitisToxic EncephalopathyAppellate DivisionSubstantial EvidenceConflicting Medical Opinions
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pereira v. Astrue

Plaintiff Jose Pereira sought judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying his disability benefits claim. He applied for Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits in 2006, alleging disability since 2004 due to a work-related back injury. His claim was initially denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in 2008 and subsequently upheld by the Appeals Council in 2009. The court found that the ALJ failed to properly apply the treating physicians rule, which requires considering specific factors when evaluating medical opinions, and did not conduct a required function-by-function analysis of the claimant's capacity. Consequently, the Commissioner's decision was reversed, and the case remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with the court's opinion, as the record was not conclusive for an immediate award of benefits.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActJudicial ReviewTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional Capacity (RFC)Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)Lumbar Spine DisorderBack InjuryRemand for Further ProceedingsSubstantial Evidence
References
22
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03982
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2025

Pereira v. 504 W 34, LLC

Plaintiff, a concrete worker, alleged injury after tripping on unsecured wire mesh at a construction site, leading to claims under Labor Law § 241 (6) predicated on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (e) (1) and (2). The Supreme Court initially denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on both claims. The Appellate Division modified this order, granting summary judgment to defendants for the § 23-1.7 (e) (1) claim, determining the area was an 'open working area' and not a 'passageway'. However, it affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the § 23-1.7 (e) (2) claim, citing unresolved factual issues regarding the wire mesh as a 'sharp projection' and its integral nature to the construction. Plaintiff's separate appeal was dismissed as untimely due to procedural deadlines.

Construction ProjectWire MeshTrip and FallIndustrial Code ViolationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewOpen Working AreaSharp ProjectionTimeliness of AppealLabor Law 241(6)
References
12
Case No. ADJ10282539 ADJ10282540
Regular
Jan 24, 2013

EDIMAR PEREIRA vs. ROCKY COAST BUILDERS, INC., GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release because the petition was not properly served on the defendant. The Board noted that the applicant claimed fraud and disagreement with the settlement terms, and therefore recommended the petition be treated as a petition to set aside. This will allow for a hearing where evidence can be presented to determine if good cause exists to rescind the original order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEdimar PereiraRocky Coast BuildersGallagher BassettADJ10282539ADJ10282540Petition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseJoint OrderAdministrative Law Judge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pereira v. Young (In Re Young)

This memorandum decision from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York addresses an adversary proceeding where John S. Pereira, the Chapter 7 trustee, sought to deny the debtor, Ginger Young, a discharge in bankruptcy. The Trustee raised objections under three sections of the Bankruptcy Code, alleging the debtor failed to keep adequate records, knowingly withheld information, and could not satisfactorily explain the loss of assets totaling approximately $140,000 from a property sale and IRA/pension withdrawals. Judge Elizabeth S. Stong considered the debtor's defense of being a victim of severe domestic and financial abuse, supported by expert testimony from Laura Boyd, MSW. The court found the debtor's explanation credible and justified her inability to produce complete financial records and account for the asset disposition due to the traumatic circumstances. Consequently, all of the Trustee's objections to the Debtor's discharge were denied.

BankruptcyChapter 7Debtor DischargeTrustee ObjectionsDomestic AbuseFinancial AbuseRecord KeepingAsset DispositionJustificationCredibility
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Erie Insurance Exchange v. J.M. Pereira & Sons, Inc.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Peradotto argues against the majority's finding that the second exception to exclusion G of the Business Catastrophe Liability Policy does not apply to defendant J.M. Pereira & Sons, Inc. The dissent asserts that the plaintiff successfully demonstrated that exclusion G bars coverage, which would relieve the plaintiff from defense or indemnity obligations in the underlying actions. The core of the disagreement lies in the interpretation of 'underlying insurance' and its geographical limitations, specifically the SWIF policy's restriction to work performed in Pennsylvania. The judge concludes that without valid underlying insurance for work outside Pennsylvania, the Business Corporation Law policy should not extend coverage.

insurance policyemployer liabilitybodily injuryunderlying insuranceexclusion GBusiness Corporation LawSWIF policyPennsylvaniacoverage disputedissenting opinion
References
2
Case No. Adv. Pro. No. 14-1229-CEC
Regular Panel Decision

Pereira ex rel. Estate of Dieffenbacher v. Dieffenbacher (In re Dieffenbacher)

The chapter 7 trustee, John S. Pereira, filed a motion for a default judgment against Eduard Yagudayev, seeking a $76,200 money judgment for civil contempt and an accounting of diminished asset value from two corporations, ERIA Inc. and ERRI Inc. Yagudayev was held in contempt for failing to comply with Rule 2004 orders to produce documents and appear for examination. The court found the requested $76,200 monetary sanction excessive, especially given that unsecured claims against the estate total less than $3,500 and a prior $30,000 settlement with other defendants. Consequently, the motion for a money judgment for contempt sanctions was granted in part, with the trustee directed to submit an affidavit and time records to support an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs attributable to Yagudayev's contempt. The motion for a default judgment on claims of conversion, unjust enrichment, and an accounting related to the corporate assets was denied, as the corporate veil was not pierced and a settlement had already been reached with ERIA Inc. and ERRI Inc.

BankruptcyChapter 7Trustee MotionDefault JudgmentCivil ContemptSanctionsRule 2004 ExaminationCorporate Veil PiercingConversionUnjust Enrichment
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Pszeniczny

Stanislaw Pszeniczny, an alien previously removed for an aggravated felony, was indicted for illegal reentry into the United States. He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing his original removal order was invalid because his Notice to Appear (NTA) lacked a specific date and time for his hearing, citing Pereira v. Sessions. The court analyzed conflicting interpretations of Pereira and its applicability to jurisdictional issues versus the "stop-time rule." It also considered the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) for collateral attacks on removal orders. The court ultimately denied Pszeniczny's motion, finding that he received full and timely notice of his hearings and participated fully, with no prejudice or unfairness in the immigration procedure, making the Banegas Gomez v. Barr decision by the Second Circuit applicable and uncontestable.

Immigration LawIllegal ReentryRemoval OrderNotice to AppearJurisdictionDue ProcessCollateral AttackAdministrative RemediesJudicial ReviewAggravated Felony
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 15 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