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. 2021 NY Slip Op 00570
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2021

Ortega v. 669 Meeker Ave., LLC

Luis Ortega, injured in a ladder fall at a building owned by 669 Meeker Avenue, LLC, brought a personal injury claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting a workers' compensation defense by claiming Ortega was a "special employee" of theirs. The plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied both motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denials, ruling that 669 Meeker failed to prove Ortega was a special employee and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate Ortega was engaged in a protected activity, distinguishing between repair and routine maintenance.

Personal InjuryLadder FallLabor Law § 240 (1)Workers' Compensation ExclusivitySpecial Employment RelationshipSummary Judgment MotionAppellate DivisionRoutine Maintenance vs. RepairConstruction Site SafetyEmployer Liability
References
31
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 09013
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2019

Ortega v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y.

Jose Ortega, a concrete laborer, sustained a severe finger injury when a three-wheeled compressor's makeshift repair, involving a screwdriver, failed. He initiated an action for personal injuries, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) predicated on several Industrial Code sections. The Supreme Court initially denied Ortega's motion for summary judgment on liability. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that Ortega had established a prima facie case for a Labor Law § 241 (6) violation and proximate causation. The court also clarified that Ortega was not required to demonstrate freedom from comparative fault, and the defendants failed to present a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIndustrial Code ViolationProximate CauseComparative FaultConstruction AccidentNegligence
References
6
Case No. ADJ1575513 (ANA 0339482) ADJ4199991 (ANA 0342546)
Regular
Jun 16, 2017

ELIZABETH ORTEGA vs. REMEDY TEMPORARY SERVICES, RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE, In Liquidation, Adjusted By INTERCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, J.C. PENNEY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Applicant Elizabeth Ortega's workers' compensation claim against Remedy Temporary Services, Reliance National Insurance, J.C. Penney, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition for reconsideration filed by one of the parties. After careful consideration of the record and the report of the workers' compensation judge, the Board denied the petition.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgedenial of reconsiderationRemedy Temporary ServicesReliance National InsuranceIntercare Insurance CompanyJ.C. PenneyLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanyElizabeth Ortega
References
0
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02559
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2022

Ortega v. Panther Siding & Windows, Inc.

The plaintiff Rene Ortega was injured after falling from a roof while working as a foreman for a subcontractor, Golden Hammer Construction Group, Corp., which was working for Panther Siding & Windows, Inc. Ortega sued Panther Siding & Windows, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law sections and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision. The court found that Panther Siding & Windows, Inc., established it was neither the general contractor nor an agent of the owner at the accident site, thus lacking the nondelegable duty under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Ortega failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryFall from heightLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractor LiabilitySubcontractorConstruction AccidentElevation-related riskSafety devices
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01096 [214 AD3d 666]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2023

Ortega v. Fourtrax Contr. Corp.

The plaintiff, Jose Santiago Orellana Ortega, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in October 2017 while working at a construction site. He was injured when a dolly transporting sheetrock tipped over and fell onto him. Ortega commenced an action against Fourtrax Contracting Corp. and 375 N. Broadway Associates, L.P., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied the plaintiff's similar motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the plaintiff's injuries did not result from an elevation-related or gravity-related risk covered by Labor Law § 240 (1), as the statute applies to specific hazards and not all perils tangentially related to gravity's effects.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentElevation-Related RiskGravity-Related RiskFalling ObjectAppellate ReviewNassau CountySubcontractor Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortega v. Puccia

Javier Alcides Ortega was injured in August 2007 after falling from a scaffold while performing drywall work at the defendants Troy and Stacey Puccia's single-family home in Bethpage, New York. He, along with his wife Marie Mujica, commenced an action against the Puccias and Denise Alleyne alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, determining they were exempt under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 as homeowners who did not direct or control the work. Additionally, the court found the defendants were not liable under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence, as the accident arose from the method of work, not a dangerous premises condition, and they lacked supervisory control. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, upholding the application of the homeowners' exemption and the lack of liability under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.

Labor LawScaffold AccidentHomeowners ExemptionPremises LiabilityMethod of WorkSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryConstruction Site SafetyNegligenceAppellate Review
References
67
Case No. 534921
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Elizabeth Wilber

Claimant Elizabeth Wilber, a licensed practical nurse, sustained work-related injuries and was classified with a 70% permanent partial disability. Her employer, Hamister Group, LLC, and its carrier appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that affirmed her entitlement to ongoing indemnity benefits despite her rejection of a modified-duty employment offer. The carrier contended that Wilber's refusal constituted a voluntary removal from the labor market, precluding further benefits. However, the Board and subsequently the Appellate Division affirmed, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w), which stipulates that claimants classified with a permanent partial disability are not required to demonstrate ongoing attachment to the labor market for continuing benefits. The court found no basis to disturb the Board's decision, affirming the award of benefits.

Permanent Partial DisabilityIndemnity BenefitsLabor Market AttachmentModified Duty EmploymentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewClaimant RightsEmployer ObligationsBenefit SuspensionStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Christopher

The court considered a petition by the Broome County Social Services Department for an extension of placement for the child Elizabeth. Elizabeth was placed in foster care following the death of her half-brother, for which her mother, Sally, was convicted of criminally negligent homicide. Despite the Department's placement of Elizabeth with her mother during the proceedings, the court found Sally lacked credibility, insight, and responsibility for her actions. Expert testimony from two clinical psychologists highlighted the high risk to Elizabeth in her mother's care due to the mother's personality issues and lack of accountability. The court granted the extension of placement for 12 months but ordered Elizabeth's removal from her mother's home, directing the Department to place her in an appropriate alternative setting while both parents receive necessary services.

Child WelfareFamily Court ActExtension of PlacementChild AbuseCriminally Negligent HomicideParental RightsBest Interests of the ChildPsychological EvaluationCredibility AssessmentParental Responsibility
References
1
Case No. ADJ2041680 (MON 0361210)
Regular
Aug 03, 2009

RAYMOND ORTEGA (Deceased) ELIZABETH ORTEGA (Widow) NOAH ORTEGA and ANDREA ORTEGA (Minors) vs. CALTRANS; Legally Uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a deceased Caltrans employee whose widow and child sought death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the finding that the employee's death was industrially related, overturning the defendant's argument that it was not substantial evidence. The WCAB also amended the original award to defer the specific amounts for death benefits and attorney fees, returning the case to the trial level for clarification on payment methods. This amendment addresses a clerical error regarding earnings and clarifies that accrued death benefits should be paid at the stipulated temporary disability rate, divided between dependents, not as separate full rates.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCaltransLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationStipulationIndustrial InjuriesDependantsBurial ExpensesAttorney Fees
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03321 [42 NY3d 992]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2024

Matter of Elizabeth St. Garden, Inc. v. City of New York

This CPLR article 78 proceeding involved a challenge to a negative declaration issued by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) concerning a proposed affordable housing development on a lot currently occupied by the Elizabeth Street Garden. Petitioners argued that HPD failed to adequately assess the environmental impacts, particularly regarding open space reduction and climate change, under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, upholding HPD's negative declaration. The Court found that HPD took a 'hard look' at relevant environmental concerns and provided a 'reasoned elaboration' for its determination that the project would not have a significant adverse environmental impact, despite the study area being underserved with open space.

Affordable HousingEnvironmental ReviewSEQRACEQRNegative DeclarationOpen SpaceClimate ChangeUrban DevelopmentNew York City LawCPLR Article 78
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 174 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