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. 2024 NYSlipOp 01535
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2024

Fuentes v. 257 Toppings Path, LLC

The injured plaintiff, Gregorio Fuentes, was working as a laborer on a new house construction when he fell 16 feet through an unguarded opening in the attic floor while spray-painting insulation. He and his wife sued the property owner, 257 Toppings Path, LLC, and the general contractor, A-H Construction, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability was initially denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court's order and granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on both Labor Law claims, finding that the defendants failed to provide proper safety devices for an elevation-related hazard and violated Industrial Code provision 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1) (i). The Court emphasized that comparative negligence is not a defense to these specific Labor Law violations.

Construction accidentFall from heightLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial CodeSummary judgmentLiabilityElevation-related hazardUnguarded openingComparative negligence
References
16
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06792 [131 AD3d 1025]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2015

Moreira v. Osvaldo J. Ponzo

The plaintiff, Efrain Fuentes Moreira, fell from the roof of the defendant's investment property while removing a large tree that had fallen on the house during Hurricane Irene, causing structural damage. Moreira subsequently commenced an action against the defendant, Osvaldo J. Ponzo, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that tree cutting is not an activity covered by these statutes. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that while tree removal itself is generally not covered, it is protected under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) when it is an ancillary duty performed during the repair of a building or structure.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentTree RemovalRoof AccidentStructural RepairStatutory InterpretationConstruction WorkAncillary DutiesAppellate Division
References
16
Case No. ADJ8534657
Regular
Dec 24, 2015

RAMON FUENTES vs. DE ANZA COUNTRY CLUB, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Ramon Fuentes' petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would justify this extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's report, which was adopted by the WCAB, stated the decision only addressed an intermediate procedural issue. Therefore, reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision issues later.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory ProceduralEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
6
Case No. SRO 0122159, SRO 0113249
Significant
Jun 09, 2005

Danny Nabors vs. Piedmont Lumber & Mill Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board holds that when awarding permanent disability after apportionment, the amount of indemnity is calculated by determining the overall percentage of permanent disability and then subtracting the percentage of permanent disability previously awarded, affirming the formula from Fuentes v. Worker’s Comp. Appeals Bd.

En bancReconsiderationApportionmentPermanent disabilityLabor Code Section 4663Labor Code Section 4664Senate Bill 899Fuentes v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd.Formula AFormula B
References
19
Case No. ADJ9762954
Regular
Aug 16, 2019

CHRISTOPHER PAPPAS vs. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, CORVEL CORPORATION

This case concerns a workers' compensation applicant claiming a cumulative injury to his cervical spine. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its prior decision, which had apportioned 48% of the applicant's current 80% permanent disability to a prior cervical spine injury. The Board found the defendant met its burden of proving overlap between the prior and subsequent injuries, thus reducing the disability award for the current injury. The applicant's argument that he should receive the dollar value difference between the two awards was also rejected, with the Board applying the established Fuentes Formula A for calculating benefits in multiple injury cases.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative InjuryCervical SpinePermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 4664(b)KoppingAgreed Medical EvaluatorAlmaraz/Guzman
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. Casey

This case involves an appeal by an employer and its carrier from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision regarding the computation of a claimant’s average weekly wage under Workmen’s Compensation Law § 14. The board initially disregarded subdivision 1 of section 14, which mandates a specific formula (300 times the average daily wage for a six-day worker employed "substantially the whole of the year"), and instead used the claimant's actual annual earnings ($2,345.33 for 309 days worked) because it was higher than the formula's result ($2,277). The court reversed this decision, asserting that section 14 establishes a universally applicable formula for six-day employees who worked "substantially the whole of the year," regardless of whether they worked slightly more or less than 300 days. The court found that using subdivision 3 for alternative methods was inappropriate and distinguished previous cases cited by the board. The matter was remitted for further proceedings consistent with the court's interpretation, with costs awarded to the appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Average Weekly WageWorkmen's Compensation LawWage ComputationSix-day WorkerSubstantially Whole YearStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewReversed and RemittedWorker's Compensation BoardEmployer Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State

Justice Smith's concurring opinion emphasizes that New York State's constitutional requirement for a "sound basic education" now necessitates the opportunity for a high school education that prepares students for competitive employment and higher education, moving beyond rudimentary skills. The opinion critically analyzes the State's existing 54-formula system for distributing education aid, specifically highlighting its failure to adequately fund high-need districts like New York City due to its inherent complexity and susceptibility to political manipulation. It asserts that the Regents Learning Standards, while rigorous, constitute the minimum skills necessary for productive citizenship, and that the State bears a constitutional responsibility to ensure all students have the opportunity to meet these standards. Justice Smith concludes that the current funding formulas are incompatible with the Legislature's duty to provide a sound education to New York City students, advocating for a statewide reform that eliminates the existing formula for New York City, determines the actual costs required for a sound basic education across all districts, and guarantees sufficient funding for every student.

Education FundingSound Basic EducationFiscal EquityState Aid FormulasRegents Learning StandardsHigh School EducationConstitutional MandateEducational PolicySchool Finance ReformNew York City Schools
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. LYN-ROG INC.

Plaintiffs, a group of car laborers, initiated a collective action against Lyn-Rog Inc. d/b/a The Ultimate Car Wash and Roger Lenza, seeking unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York State Labor Law. They moved for conditional certification of the collective action, requesting disclosure of potential class members' contact information and authorization to distribute a notice. Defendants opposed, citing individual defenses and arguing the employees were not 'similarly situated.' The U.S. Magistrate Judge, A. Kathleen Tomlinson, granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding they met the lenient standard for conditional certification by demonstrating a common policy violating labor laws. The court also ordered the defendants to produce contact information for employees dating back six years, aligning with state law claims for judicial economy, and approved the proposed notice.

FLSAOvertime PayCollective ActionConditional CertificationUnpaid WagesLabor LawNew York State Labor LawCar Wash IndustryWage and HourClass Action
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Geddes v. Cessna Aircraft Co.

This Memorandum and Order addresses the proposed distribution of a $1,800,000.00 wrongful death settlement for the estate of Warren H. Geddes, who died in a plane crash. The plaintiffs, including the widow Leticia Geddes and three minor children, presented a distribution plan that substantially increased the widow's share compared to the 'In re Kaiser's Estate' formula. U.S. Magistrate Judge Chrein expressed concerns regarding this proposed allocation and the absence of a guardian ad litem to protect the minor children's interests. Acknowledging criticisms of the Kaiser formula, the court found insufficient justification for such a significant deviation in favor of the spouse. Consequently, the court ordered the appointment of a guardian ad litem due to the inherent conflict of interest and directed the plaintiffs to provide detailed documentation of expenditures made for the children's sole benefit.

Wrongful DeathSettlement DistributionGuardian Ad LitemInfant's InterestsPecuniary LossKaiser FormulaConflict of InterestAttorney FeesWorkers Compensation LienEstate Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Avon Associates, Inc.

This case addresses a motion by defendants mortgagors to vacate an ex parte order appointing a receiver during a mortgage foreclosure action. Defendants asserted that the lack of notice for the receiver's appointment violated CPLR 6401 and their Federal constitutional due process rights, citing Fuentes v Shevin. The court found that New York's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 1325 (subd 1) permits ex parte receiver appointments when the mortgage contract explicitly waives notice. Furthermore, the court distinguished the present case from Fuentes, concluding that the sophisticated business operators involved had knowingly and voluntarily waived their right to notice, akin to the circumstances in Overmyer Co. v Frick Co. Based on these findings, the court affirmed the validity of the ex parte order and denied the defendants' motion to vacate the appointment of the receiver.

Mortgage ForeclosureReceiver AppointmentEx Parte OrderDue ProcessWaiver of NoticeContractual WaiverCPLRReal Property Actions and Proceedings LawConstitutional LawBusiness Disputes
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 56 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