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. ADJ7390790
Regular
Mar 18, 2013

PAUL MORENO vs. CALIFORNIA PAVEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Paul Moreno's Petition for Removal. The Board found the petition moot because the underlying matter's hearing was continued on February 26, 2013, without discovery closure. Therefore, the removal of the January 2, 2013 decision is no longer relevant.

Petition for Removalmootcontinuedclosure of discoveryWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoarddismissaltrialhearingADJ7390790Pomona District Office
References
0
Case No. B371-2013, B372-2013
Regular Panel Decision

People v. English

The defendant was arrested for attempted kidnapping and compelling a 14-year-old to engage in prostitution. Incident to the arrest, an iPhone was seized and searched under warrant B371-2013, and an apartment was searched under warrant B372-2013. The defendant moved to controvert both search warrants. The court denied the motion regarding B371-2013, finding the search of the cell phone's contents did not exceed the warrant's scope given the flexibility afforded in digital searches and the plain view doctrine for other incriminating evidence. However, the court granted in part the motion regarding B372-2013, ruling that the warrant for the apartment's electronic devices lacked the necessary specificity under the Fourth Amendment, leading to the suppression of evidence seized from those devices. Evidence seized under the valid portions of B372-2013 (non-electronic items like a holster and ammunition) was deemed admissible.

Search warrantFourth AmendmentCell phone searchElectronic device searchParticularity requirementProbable causeSuppression of evidencePlain view doctrineDigital forensicsAttempted kidnapping
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Dustin JJ.

This appeal concerns a Family Court order from Broome County, entered December 4, 2012, which adjudicated Dustin JJ. an abandoned child and terminated the respondent-father's parental rights. The child was placed in petitioner's custody shortly after birth in 2010, with the respondent declared the father in July 2011 and the mother surrendering her rights in August 2011. The petitioner initiated abandonment proceedings in February 2012, based on the respondent's failure to visit or communicate with the child or the agency during the critical six-month period from August 26, 2011, to February 26, 2012. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's finding, noting that the respondent's sporadic contacts (one visit and a few phone calls) were insufficient, and his incarceration did not excuse the lack of communication. The decision also upheld the Family Court's discretion in limiting cross-examination and dispensing with a dispositional hearing, reaffirming that a suspended judgment is not an available option after a finding of abandonment.

Parental Rights TerminationAbandonment ProceedingSocial Services LawFamily Court AppealChild CustodyIncarcerated ParentFailure to CommunicateBurden of ProofDiscretion of Trial CourtSuspended Judgment
References
12
Case No. ADJ8725582
Regular
Dec 08, 2016

FREDDY HENRIQUEZ vs. FRED LEEDS PROPERTIES, LIBERTY MUTUAL, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA/TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE

This case concerns a lien claim by Tri-County Medical Group for services rendered between May 1, 2013, and November 6, 2013. The lien was dismissed as untimely by the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) due to the statute of limitations. The WCJ correctly applied Labor Code section 4903.5(a), which mandates an 18-month filing deadline for services provided on or after July 1, 2013. Since the lien was filed on February 26, 2016, over 18 months after the last date of service, the Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration.

Labor Code 4903.5(a)lien claimstatute of limitationspetition for reconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJorder dismissing liendate of services18-month limitation periodongoing treatment
References
3
Case No. ADJ1941485 (VNO 0263845) ADJ4137418 (VNO 0270976) ADJ1018222 (MON 0140131)
Regular
Dec 15, 2008

GERTRUDE CHISM vs. K-MART/SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, Permissibly Self-Insured Administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition to remove WCJ Zarett as moot due to his retirement, and denied the request for a commissioner's hearing on sanctions as premature. The Board remanded the case to the trial level for a full evidentiary hearing on the defendant's allegations regarding the applicant's attorneys, as these factual issues are best addressed by a new Workers' Compensation Judge. The defendant's numerous petitions for removal, vacating hearings, and stays were largely dismissed or denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGertrude ChismK-Mart/Sears Holding CorporationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for Commissioner's HearingRemoval of Judge ZarettVacate HearingStay ProceedingsImposition of SanctionsGuardian Ad Litem
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Batthany v. Scully

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by petitioner Everett Batthany, an inmate, to annul a Superintendent’s hearing disposition from February 17, 1987. Batthany was found guilty of attempted escape despite claiming mental incapacity. The Hearing Officer, Captain Carol Reynolds, based her decision on off-the-record conversations with psychiatric staff, which Batthany argued violated his due process rights. The Commissioner of Correctional Services had previously reduced Batthany's punishment. The court found that Batthany’s right to confront evidence was violated by the reliance on off-the-record information. Consequently, the court annulled the original disposition, ordered all related records expunged, and directed a rehearing where Batthany should be permitted to interpose the affirmative defense of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect.

Inmate RightsDue ProcessSuperintendent's HearingMental Health DefenseAttempted EscapeOff-the-Record EvidencePrison DisciplineCPLR Article 78AnnulmentRehearing
References
6
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. 2025 NY Slip Op 05688
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v. New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings

Sahara Construction Corp. challenged a determination by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that upheld civil penalties and a restitution order for violations related to a home improvement project. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed OATH's determination, finding that the imposed civil penalties of $5,000 and restitution of $230,266.63 were not disproportionate and fell within statutory guidelines. The Court also affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motions to dismiss and compel discovery, concluding they were not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Home Improvement ContractorsCivil PenaltiesRestitution AwardAdministrative Code ViolationsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSense of FairnessAdministrative Summons
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 3,572 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