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. 2020 NY Slip Op 04335 [185 AD3d 1074]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2020

Reynoso v. Ahava 750, LLC

Inez Reynoso appealed an order granting summary judgment to defendants Ahava 750, LLC (landlord) and Chem Rx Pharmacy Services, LLC (lessee/employer) in a personal injury action. Reynoso was injured during a power outage while working in a building owned by Ahava 750 and leased to Chem Rx. The Supreme Court dismissed claims against Chem Rx based on workers' compensation exclusivity and against Ahava 750 as an out-of-possession landlord. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that Chem Rx and Pharmerica Corporation established prima facie that Reynoso was Chem Rx's employee and received workers' compensation benefits, making them the exclusive remedy. The court also agreed that Ahava 750, as an out-of-possession landlord without retained control or contractual duty, was not liable.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentOut-of-Possession LandlordCollateral EstoppelPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewEmployment LawDuty of CareFall Accident
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reynoso v. Prospect Associates, L.P.

Plaintiff Luis Reynoso, an employee, sustained injuries when an interior staircase collapsed during demolition work at a building owned by defendant Prospect Associates, L.P. and for which defendant Flintlock Construction, Inc. was the general contractor. Reynoso filed suit under Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices. Defendants disputed whether Reynoso was authorized to be in the building and the nature of the work he was performing, as demolition was not officially scheduled. The Supreme Court denied both plaintiffs' and defendants' motions for partial summary judgment, finding significant factual disputes. The appellate court affirmed this denial, emphasizing that issues regarding plaintiff's authorization and the applicability of Labor Law § 240 (1) to the staircase must be resolved at trial.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentStaircase CollapseDemolition Work InjuryWorker SafetyPremises LiabilityAuthorization DisputeFactual DisputesAppellate AffirmationConstruction Accident
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reynoso v. All Foods, Inc.

Ana Reynoso sued All Foods, Inc. alleging gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII. The Defendant moved to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court granted the motion to dismiss the gender discrimination claim, finding the plaintiff failed to plead specific gender-based adverse employment actions. However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the hostile work environment and retaliation claims, concluding that Reynoso sufficiently pleaded facts to support these claims, including severe and pervasive harassment and a causal connection for retaliation based on temporal proximity to her termination.

Title VIIGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationMotion to DismissFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Prima Facie CaseAdverse Employment ActionTemporal ProximitySupervisor Harassment
References
52
Case No. ADJ16909714, ADJ20101471
Regular
Apr 25, 2025

DAVID REYNOSO vs. JB POINDEXTER AND COMPANY, INC., XL INSURANCE OF AMERICA

David Reynoso, an industrial maintenance mechanic, sustained a cervical spine injury on January 13, 2018, while employed by JB Poindexter and Company, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, challenging the WCJ's findings regarding the injury, permanent disability, and other procedural matters. The WCAB denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's decision that the applicant suffered an 18% permanent disability due to the industrial injury and was entitled to further medical care and indemnity payments. The Board found no grounds for consolidation of cases, upheld the validity of the medical evidence, and rejected the defendant's due process and statute of limitations arguments.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAwardOrderIndustrial InjuryCervical SpinePermanent DisabilityMedical TreatmentOccupational Group NumberPermanent Disability Indemnity
References
8
Case No. ADJ8550821, ADJ9443562
Regular
Feb 06, 2017

ESMERALDA REYNOSO vs. COUNTY OF VENTURA

This case concerns a worker's compensation claim for psychiatric injury due to continuous trauma from 1998-2012. The defendant sought to overturn the finding that the injury arose out of employment, arguing the medical expert's reports lacked substantial evidence due to alleged inconsistencies and incomplete history. The Appeals Board affirmed the original award, finding the expert's opinions on industrial causation were sufficiently consistent and based on an adequate medical history. The Board found the defendant's arguments failed to undermine the expert's conclusions regarding predominant industrial causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and AwardReconsiderationPanel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME)Substantial Medical EvidenceContinuous Trauma InjuryPsychiatric InjuryCausationIndustrial FactorsPersonnel Actions
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 1990

Reynoso v. Kensington Management Services, Inc.

This is a personal injury action where an apartment building superintendent sued the owner, New Heights, and the managing agent, Kensington. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was modified, granting summary judgment for New Heights and dismissing the complaint against it, based on a prior Workers' Compensation Board decision establishing New Heights as the plaintiff's employer, which precluded relitigation. However, questions of fact remain regarding Kensington's potential role as a special employer or its knowledge of the alleged defect, so the complaint against Kensington was not dismissed. The order was otherwise affirmed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationEmployer LiabilityRes JudicataAppellate ProcedurePremises LiabilityBuilding ManagementNew York LawCollateral Estoppel
References
1
Case No. ADJ2151255 (LAO 0804906)
Regular
Feb 11, 2013

BAIRO REYNOSO vs. VOLT SERVICE, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order setting trial was not a final order. The WCAB granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinded the trial setting order, and removed the case from the calendar. This decision was based on the defendant's argument that significant prejudice and potential irreparable harm would result from proceeding without completing the deposition of the applicant's wife, who provides home health care. The WCAB found that allowing further discovery and updated medical evaluations would serve judicial economy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Setting TrialBifurcationHome Health Care LienMandatory Settlement ConferenceAgreed Medical ExaminersSurveillance FilmDeposition of Wife
References
11
Case No. ADJ10327918
Regular
Oct 26, 2016

JOSE REYNOSO vs. N & N WINDBREAK SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal because it failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, and the defendant did not show why reconsideration would be inadequate if an adverse decision is ultimately rendered. Furthermore, the defendant improperly filed a supplemental pleading without seeking permission. The defendant's arguments regarding discovery non-compliance were deemed insufficient to warrant removal.

Petition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationSupplemental PleadingWCAB Rule 10848Uninsured EmployerIndependent ContractorInjurious IncidentDiscovery Dispute
References
2
Case No. ADJ7070926
Regular
Jan 08, 2014

ELISIO REYNOSO vs. ATLANTIC EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION CORP.; LIBERTY MUTUAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory order, not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities. The Board further denied the petition for removal, adopting the judge's reasoning that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed and removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityRemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmAdministrative Law JudgeReport and Recommendation
References
9
Case No. ADJ2017747
Regular
Nov 01, 2011

DIANE REYNOSO vs. WELCOME HOME, CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and returned the case to the trial level to decide a lien claim on its merits. The WCJ initially denied the lien claim as barred by the statute of limitations. However, the Board found the defendant estopped from asserting the statute of limitations due to their failure to serve the lien claimant with crucial documents. This failure to serve tolled the statute of limitations, allowing the lien claim to proceed to a decision on its merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantStatute of limitationsLabor Code section 4903.5ReconsiderationFindings and OrderStipulated AwardCompromise and ReleaseExplanation of ReviewWCAB Rule 10886
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 18 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