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. ADJ7821766
Regular
Jan 23, 2014

LUIS ALBERTO AUDELO PARTIDA, dec'd. vs. GO NATIVE, INC., THE HARTFORD

In **Audelo Partida v. Go Native, Inc., et al.**, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration. This decision allows the Board further time to thoroughly review the factual and legal complexities of the case. The WCAB needs additional study to ensure a complete understanding of the record before issuing a just and reasoned decision. Consequently, all future filings must be submitted directly to the WCAB Commissioners' office, not to any district office or through e-filing, pending the issuance of a Decision After Reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSan Jose District OfficeGO NATIVEINC.THE HARTFORDADJ7821766LUIS ALBERTO AUDELO PARTIDAdec'dElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
0
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03670 [239 AD3d 1157]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2025

Matter of Lo (Go N.Y. Tours Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Yero Lo, a street ticket seller for Go New York Tours Inc. (TopView Sightseeing), applied for unemployment insurance benefits after TopView's closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department of Labor initially determined TopView was the employer and liable for contributions. An Administrative Law Judge overruled this, finding Lo and others were independent contractors. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed the ALJ, concluding that ticket sellers were employees, making TopView liable. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence of TopView's control over the ticket sellers, including training, providing equipment, setting parameters for sales, and restricting other employment.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorStreet Ticket SellerSightseeing Tour BusControl TestAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDepartment of LaborUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matera v. Native Eyewear, Inc.

This case involves Pasquale Matera (Plaintiff) suing Native Eyewear, Inc. (Defendant) for breach of a consulting agreement. Matera, a New York resident, alleges Native Eyewear, a Pennsylvania corporation, failed to pay royalties and provide royalty statements for design and marketing services. Native Eyewear moved to dismiss the complaint for improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, citing a forum selection clause in the agreement. The Court, presided over by District Judge Spatt, denied both motions. It found that personal jurisdiction over Native Eyewear existed in the Eastern District of New York under CPLR § 302(a)(1) due to the ongoing contractual relationship and Matera's services being rendered in New York for the defendant's benefit. The Court also determined that the clause in the agreement was not a mandatory forum selection clause and thus did not preclude the action in New York or necessitate a transfer.

Contract DisputeBreach of AgreementImproper VenueTransfer of VenueDiversity JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionLong-Arm StatuteForum Selection ClauseConsulting AgreementRoyalty Payments
References
33
Case No. ADJ795254 (MON 0270524)
Regular
Feb 15, 2013

Hattie Goings vs. Werner Enterprises, Travelers Insurance Company

This case involves Hattie Goings' petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award that increased her permanent disability rating. Goings claims the administrative law judge erred on multiple grounds, including improper use of the Medical Provider Network, failure to reopen for additional injuries, and evidentiary issues. The defendant, Werner Enterprises, asserts it was not properly served with the petition for reconsideration. Therefore, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to allow the defendant to file a timely answer, ensuring due process.

Petition to ReopenFindings and AwardPermanent Disability IncreaseMedical Provider NetworkIndependent ContractorGood Cause to ReopenPetition for ReconsiderationDue ProcessLife PensionTotally Permanently Disabled
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1980

Claim of Ash v. Native Laces & Textiles Co.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding liability for benefits. The claimant suffered a knee injury in 1971 while working for Native Laces & Textiles Co., leading to multiple surgeries and compensation awards. After the case was closed, the claimant repeatedly sought further compensation and treatment, leading to the case being reopened. In May 1979, the board reopened the case again and initially imposed liability on the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. However, upon further appeal, the board reversed its determination and discharged the special fund from liability. The employer and its carrier then appealed this decision. The court affirmed the board's decision, finding that the claimant's timely letter in April 1976 constituted a valid application for compensation within the statutory periods, thus placing liability on the carrier rather than the Special Fund.

Workers' CompensationKnee InjuryReopened CasesSpecial FundEmployer LiabilityCarrier LiabilityTimely ApplicationAppealMedical TreatmentBoard Decision
References
1
Case No. ADJ10761099
Regular
Apr 06, 2020

TANYA WARD vs. SARTI ENTERPRISES, LLC, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant injured by a car while investigating a disturbance on employer property after her shift. The defendant argued the injury was not compensable due to the "going and coming rule," asserting the applicant was not acting within the scope of employment. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the injury industrial. The Board reasoned that the applicant's investigation conferred a direct benefit to the employer, fitting the "dual purpose" exception to the going and coming rule.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryFront Desk ManagerRight ShoulderRight ElbowUpper ExtremitiesGoing and Coming RuleDual Purpose ExceptionIndustrial CausationEmployer Benefit
References
10
Case No. GRO 0032684
Regular
Aug 28, 2007

LUIS CONTRERAS vs. NORTH AMERICAN FIRE HOSE, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision finding an industrial injury and a penalty for unreasonable delay in medical treatment, but denied the applicant's request to go outside the Medical Provider Network (MPN). Although a four-month delay occurred, the Board found that the employer's good-faith efforts to secure treatment within the MPN meant there was no "neglect or refusal" to justify going outside the network. Therefore, the applicant remains within the MPN for treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationMedical Provider Network (MPN)Unreasonable DelayLabor Code Section 5814Self-Procured TreatmentNeglect or RefusalKnight v. United Parcel ServiceAndrade v. State Comp. Ins. FundPhysician Choice
References
2
Case No. ADJ8608456 MF\nADJ8608504\nADJ8523009\nADJ8551858\nADJ8609068
Regular
Oct 07, 2015

HORACIO CABRERA, Deceased MARIBEL BARAJAS, Widow, Guardian Ad\nLitem for LITZY CABRERA, LESLY\nCABRERA, MARIA CABRERA AND\nKASSANDRA CABRERA; BRIANNA\nCABRERA, for herself and Guardian Ad Litem for STEFANI ARIAS, ANTONIO SOLARES, MODESTO DOMINGUEZ, JOHNATHAN ALONSO vs. MV CONTRACTING, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the employer sought reconsideration of a ruling finding a fatal motor vehicle accident and related injuries industrial. The employer argued the administrative law judge erred in admitting evidence and presuming compensability due to a failure to issue timely denial notices. The employer also contended the "going and coming rule" barred the claims as the accident occurred during a standard commute. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the judge's findings that the injuries were industrial and not barred by the going and coming rule, largely adopting the judge's reasoning.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionRulings and Order Admitting EvidenceFindings of FactMotor Vehicle AccidentIndustrial InjuriesFatal Industrial InjuryDependentsNotice of Denial
References
0
Case No. ADJ17834281
Regular
Nov 10, 2025

JOSE MARTINEZ vs. CUSTOM PIPE COUPLING, FEDERAL INSURANCE CO.

Applicant Jose Martinez sought reconsideration of a finding that his injury did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment, as it fell under the "going and coming" rule. The WCJ's initial finding was based on a May 26, 2023 motor vehicle accident occurring while Martinez was driving a company truck home for personal use, specifically to transport scrap metal given to him by his employer. The Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied reconsideration, concluding that none of the exceptions to the "going and coming" rule applied, as there was no benefit to the employer for Martinez to take the company truck home once the delivery task was removed.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionSpecial Errand ExceptionAOE/COEMotor Vehicle AccidentCompany Vehicle
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2014

Gesualdi v. Fortunata Carting Inc.

Plaintiffs, trustees of various Local 282 benefit funds, sued Fortunata Carting Inc. for unpaid contributions under ERISA and LMRA. District Judge Kuntz granted default judgment and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Go for damages. Judge Go recommended awarding $382,381.41, covering unpaid contributions from remittance reports and audits, recoupment of benefits paid to ineligible owner Vincent Mascia, and amounts due from a prior settlement agreement. The recommendation also included interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and audit costs. Judge Kuntz adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, ordering the entry of judgment for the specified amount and the closure of the case, as no objections were filed by the deadline.

ERISALMRAMPPAADefault JudgmentUnpaid ContributionsMulti-employer FundsDamages CalculationPrejudgment InterestAttorneys' FeesAudit Costs
References
67
Showing 1-10 of 157 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