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. ADJ9358356
Regular
Sep 12, 2018

BLADIMIR RAMIREZ vs. J&J APARTMENT RENTALS, NORGARD INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claim for acupuncture services rendered to applicant Bladimir Ramirez. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award, finding the lien claimant failed to demonstrate functional improvement required for more than six acupuncture treatments. While acknowledging some improvement in physical examinations, the WCAB determined this alone did not satisfy the regulatory definition of functional improvement. Ultimately, the WCAB modified the award to allow the lien claimant $\$647.92$ for services rendered between June 17, 2014, and July 24, 2014, based on a submitted bill review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLien ClaimantOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleFunctional ImprovementActivities of Daily LivingWork RestrictionsPrimary Treating PhysicianCompromise and Release
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Speedway Home Improvement Co. v. Gourdine

Speedway Home Improvement Co. (Speedway), a licensed contractor, challenged a decision by the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) via a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Speedway had contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Hannon for home renovation, but after commencing work and receiving partial payments, abandoned the project due to alleged underestimation, demanding further price increases which the Hannons refused. The Hannons filed a complaint with DCA, which, after a hearing, found Speedway guilty of abandoning the contract without justification and awarded the Hannons $21,110. Speedway argued that the DCA hearing denied due process and that the award was arbitrary and excessive. The court, however, found that Speedway received due process, the DCA's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and the monetary award was not a disproportionate penalty but merely compensated the Hannons for expenses incurred in hiring a second contractor. Consequently, the court denied Speedway's petition and dismissed the proceeding.

CPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewConsumer ProtectionHome Improvement ContractBreach of ContractDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceMonetary DamagesAgency DiscretionContract Abandonment
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07391
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2018

Matter of Community Hous. Improvement Program v. Commissioner of Labor

The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed an appeal filed by the Community Housing Improvement Program against the Commissioner of Labor. The appeal sought to challenge a decision by the Industrial Board of Appeals regarding a minimum wage order for the building service industry. The court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to properly file a notice of appeal with the court of original instance, which was the Industrial Board of Appeals, not the Appellate Division. Additionally, the petitioner failed to timely and correctly serve the notice of appeal on the respondent's counsel at the designated address. Consequently, due to the complete failure to comply with CPLR 5515, the appeal was dismissed.

JurisdictionAppeal ProcedureService of ProcessAppellate DivisionIndustrial Board of AppealsMinimum WageLabor LawCPLRNew York CourtsStatutory Interpretation
References
12
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06288
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2023

Matter of Puccio v. Absolute Chimney & Home Improvement, LLC

Claimant Anthony Puccio, a masonry worker, was rendered paraplegic after falling from a roof in September 2019. He filed a workers' compensation claim against Absolute Chimney & Home Improvement, LLC, which the State Insurance Fund (SIF) initially accepted but later controverted, asserting claimant was a partner and not an employee, thus excluded from coverage. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board disallowed the claim, finding claimant was a profit-sharing partner/owner. Claimant appealed, arguing SIF failed to comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 21-a (3) and that the Board erred in its finding of no employer-employee relationship. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling that the statutory compliance issue was unpreserved and substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that claimant was a partner, not an employee.

Employer-Employee RelationshipPartnership StatusWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCoverage DenialProfit-Sharing AgreementTax Returns as EvidenceAdministrative ReviewReconsideration DenialJudicial Review of Board DecisionsSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02305 [216 AD3d 630]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2023

Lochan v. H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc.

Ashram Lochan sued H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc., 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, and Hassan Haghanegi for personal injuries sustained from falling off an unsecured ladder while painting, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company and, in effect, searched the record to award summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, denying the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the award of summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, finding it improperly searched the record. However, it affirmed the grant of summary judgment against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, concluding the plaintiff established a prima facie case and defendants failed to raise a triable issue. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, ruling they failed to establish the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, a recalcitrant worker, or a volunteer.

Ladder AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240(1)Sole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseUnsecured LadderConstruction Site SafetyWorker Fall
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weinberg v. Alpine Improvements, LLC

The plaintiff, an electrician for T & J Electric, Inc., was injured after slipping from a stepladder while working on a renovation project in a supermarket leased by Super Stop & Shop and owned by Alpine Improvements, LLC. The plaintiff alleged the fall was due to a cheese-like substance on his boots from a different area of the store, asserting claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to all defendants. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the ladder was not defective and the fall was solely due to the slippery boots. It also affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 241 (6) claims due to inapplicable or general safety regulations, and the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Discover General Contracting Corporation, as it lacked control over the dangerous condition. However, the court reversed the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Alpine Improvements, LLC, stating the owner failed to establish it did not create the condition or have notice of it.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentSlippery ConditionStepladder FallConstruction Site InjuryOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor Liability
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pinheiro v. Montrose Improvement District

Plaintiff Joao M. Pinheiro was injured when a trench wall collapsed while he was working on a pipeline installation project. He filed a lawsuit against the defendants, including a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability under this law. On appeal, the Court rejected the plaintiffs' interpretation of Labor Law § 240 (1), ruling that trench collapses are not among the special hazards contemplated by the statute. The order was modified to grant partial summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and affirmed as modified.

Labor Law § 240(1)Trench CollapseFalling Earth and StonesConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityWorkplace SafetyExcavation Safety
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2014

Costa v. Sears Home Improvement Products, Inc.

Plaintiff Christina Costa sued Sears Home Improvement Products, Inc. and Sears Holdings Corporation for retaliation under Title VII, alleging unlawful termination after engaging in protected activities. Defendants sought summary judgment, asserting that Costa was legitimately fired for falsifying time records. Costa countered with claims of disparate treatment, retaliatory threats, and close temporal proximity between her protected actions and adverse employment events. The court denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment, citing genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the termination was a pretext for retaliation. All other motions, including Plaintiff's motions for sanctions and to compel, and Defendants' request for Rule 11 sanctions, were also denied.

Employment LawRetaliationTitle VIISummary JudgmentFalsification of RecordsProtected ActivityDisparate TreatmentCausal ConnectionPretextSanctions
References
56
Case No. ADJ1290390 (SAC 0325027)
Regular
Feb 04, 2011

ELLEN LAMBERT vs. LOWES HOME IMPROVEMENT, KEMPER INSURANCE, SEDGWICK

In *Lambert v. Lowe's Home Improvement*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to defer the calculation of applicant's life pension and attorney's fees related to it pending the California Supreme Court's decision in *Duncan*. The Board affirmed the finding of 86% permanent disability with no apportionment, upholding the WCJ's reliance on the Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinion. However, the Board remanded the penalty calculation for further determination at the trial level due to unclear basis. The applicant's attorney's fee from the permanent disability award was affirmed at 15%.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityPenaltyAttorney FeeLife PensionAgreed Medical EvaluatorNew and Further Disability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boles v. Dormer Giant, Inc.

This case addresses whether Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 shields an employer from third-party liability for contribution or indemnity when the employer failed to secure workers' compensation for an injured employee. Plaintiff Douglas Boles was injured in a scaffolding collapse while working for Personal Touch Home Improvements, Inc., a subcontractor of Dormer Giant, Inc. Boles sued Dormer Giant, which then brought a third-party action against Personal Touch. The lower courts dismissed Dormer Giant's third-party complaint, concluding Personal Touch was protected by Section 11. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that an employer must comply with Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 by securing compensation for employees to benefit from the protections of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 against third-party liability, reinforcing the legislative intent behind the 1996 Omnibus Workers’ Compensation Reform Act.

Workers’ Compensation Law § 11Employer LiabilityThird-Party ContributionThird-Party IndemnityGrave InjuryFailure to Secure Workers' CompensationLabor Law § 240(1)Scaffolding AccidentSubcontractor LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 616 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