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. 2023 NY Slip Op 02025
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 2023

Velazquez-Guadalupe v. Ideal Bldrs. & Constr. Servs., Inc.

The case Velazquez-Guadalupe v Ideal Bldrs. & Constr. Servs., Inc. addresses the scope of Workers' Compensation Law § 11 regarding third-party claims for contribution and indemnity against employers. The Appellate Division, Second Department, clarified that a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) determination establishing an employer-employee relationship bars such claims, even if the third party did not participate in the WCB proceedings, overturning the Supreme Court's prior reliance on Baten v Northfork Bancorporation, Inc. The court granted CDW Carpentry, Inc. summary judgment on these cross-claims, as the WCB found it to be Velazquez-Guadalupe's employer. However, the court affirmed allowing defendants to assert a cross-claim for breach of an oral agreement to procure insurance against CDW, noting such agreements are distinct from indemnification, and affirmed denying JSK Construction Corp.'s summary judgment motion as premature for lack of discovery.

Workers' Compensation Law § 11Third-Party IndemnificationContribution ClaimsEmployer ImmunityGrave Injury ExceptionWritten Contract IndemnificationCollateral EstoppelSummary Judgment MotionBuilding Collapse InjuryConstruction Site Accident
References
35
Case No. 532851
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Maria Fierro-Switzer (William Switzer, Dec'd)

Claimant Maria Fierro-Switzer appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that disallowed her claim for death benefits. Her deceased spouse, William Switzer, a retired New York City firefighter, volunteered at Ground Zero after the September 2001 terrorist attacks and later died from metastatic kidney cancer. Claimant alleged that his death was caused by toxic exposure during his volunteer work. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Board disallowed the claim, finding that Article 8-A of the Workers' Compensation Law, which covers volunteers in World Trade Center rescue efforts, requires the participant to file a WTC-12 registration form during their lifetime. As the decedent did not file this form, the claim under Article 8-A was denied. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that despite the independence of a death benefits claim from the decedent's potential compensation claim, there must be a legal basis for the claim and an entity upon which liability may be imposed. Since the decedent was a volunteer at the time of exposure, no claim could lie under Workers' Compensation Law § 16, which requires injuries to arise out of and in the course of employment. The decedent's sole potential avenue for recovery would have been under Article 8-A, which was precluded by the failure to file the required WTC-12 form during his lifetime.

World Trade Center9/11 AttacksGround ZeroVolunteer BenefitsDeath Benefits ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law Article 8-AWTC-12 Registration FormToxic ExposureRenal Cell CarcinomaAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fierro v. City of New York

Joseph Fierro, an assistant principal for Public School 12X, filed a lawsuit against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Education (DOE), and individual defendants, alleging hostile work environment sexual harassment, retaliation, and First Amendment free speech violations. Fierro claimed that Principal Ronna Bleadon subjected him to sexual harassment and retaliated against him, including unwanted transfers, after he resisted her advances and refused to participate in "campaigns to ruin the careers" of two teachers. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. Specifically, claims against the City of New York, DOE, Burnett, Erber, and Brown were dismissed due to various procedural issues, while First Amendment retaliation claims against Bleadon were allowed to proceed, rejecting her qualified immunity defense.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationFirst Amendment RightsFreedom of SpeechPublic Employee SpeechQualified ImmunityMotion to DismissNew York City Human Rights LawFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
41
Case No. ADJ8984436
Regular
Aug 30, 2019

GUADALUPE RODRIGUEZ vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

This case involves applicant Guadalupe Rodriguez's claim for a psychiatric and internal system injury against County of Riverside. The administrative law judge (WCJ) denied the claim, finding it was substantially caused by lawful, good faith personnel actions under Labor Code Section 3208.3(h). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and returned the case for further proceedings. This was because the WCJ and the medical evaluator's analyses regarding personnel actions and causation were deficient, requiring further development of the record.

Labor Code Section 3208.3(h)psychiatric injuryinternal system injurygood faith personnel actionsCounty of San Bernardino v. WCAB (McCoy)substantial causepredominant causeagreed medical evaluator (AME)qualified medical evaluator (PQME)Rolda analysis
References
7
Case No. ADJ8197646
Regular
Feb 19, 2013

GUADALUPE FIERRO vs. BURLINGTON HOMES, BILTMORE PROPERTIES; YORK RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding an industrial injury claim. The Board affirmed the finding that the applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment, and that the claim was not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). However, the Board amended the original decision to strike all references to specific injured body parts. This amendment allows for further development of the record to determine which body parts were actually injured in the July 7, 2011 incident.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGuadalupe FierroBurlington HomesBiltmore PropertiesYork Risk ServicesADJ8197646Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardWCJindustrial injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ10474601
Regular
Mar 25, 2019

GUADALUPE ROMERO vs. BRINDERSON LP, ESIS

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration filed by Guadalupe Romero that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed. The petition was untimely because it was filed more than 25 days after the service of the Administrative Law Judge's decision. The WCAB's rules clearly state that a petition must be *received* by the board within the statutory period, and proof of mailing is insufficient. As the deadline is jurisdictional, the Board lacked authority to consider the petition on its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeService by MailTime ExtensionProof of FilingMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rymer v. Hagler
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04334 [207 AD3d 827]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2022

Matter of Fierro-Switzer v. World Trade Ctr. Volunteer Fund

Claimant's spouse, a retired New York City firefighter, died from metastatic kidney cancer. Claimant sought workers' compensation death benefits, attributing the cancer to the decedent's volunteer work at Ground Zero after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board disallowed the claim, citing the decedent's failure to file the mandatory WTC-12 registration form during his lifetime, a prerequisite for claims under Workers' Compensation Law article 8-A. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that since the decedent was a volunteer at the time of exposure, his claim did not arise out of employment, thus precluding benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 16. Furthermore, without the required registration form, no claim could be pursued under article 8-A.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsVolunteerWorld Trade Center9/11Toxic ExposureRegistration RequirementsRenal Cell CarcinomaArticle 8-ASection 16
References
10
Case No. ADJ8215090
Regular
Jun 05, 2019

GUADALUPE MENDOZA vs. GODO FARM LABOR CONTRACTORS, STAR INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a previous decision. The amendment allowed a lien claim for medical treatment provided by Suarez-Toutoundjian Chiropractic to the applicant, Guadalupe Mendoza, in the amount of $780.92. This amount is to be paid by Defendant-Carrier Star Insurance Company. The overall decision of March 14, 2019, was otherwise affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGuadalupe MendozaGODO FARM LABOR CONTRACTORSSTAR INSURANCEMEADOWBROOKPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportDecision After ReconsiderationLien ClaimantSuarez-Toutoundjian Chiropractic
References
0
Case No. ADJ3666697
Regular
Nov 18, 2010

JOSE GUADALUPE AGUAYO vs. THE PETERSEN COLLECTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a lien claim by Global Interpreting for services provided to applicant Jose Guadalupe Aguayo. The trial judge denied the lien, finding that Spanish interpretation during medical treatment is not a compensable cost in Los Angeles, treating it as a normal business expense. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the denial, and returned the case for further proceedings. The Board held that the compensability of interpretation services must be assessed based on individual circumstances and evidence, not categorically denied due to the language or location.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative law judgeInterpreting servicesLabor CodeReasonable and necessaryCompensabilityBurden of proof
References
0
Case No. ADJ8430282 ADJ8430286
Regular
Jun 20, 2014

GUADALUPE VALENZUELA vs. ALTRUIST HOMECARE SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, ESIS

This case concerns a caregiver, Guadalupe Valenzuela, who sustained industrial injuries while working for Altruist Homecare Services. Altruist sought to have Valenzuela classified as an independent contractor, arguing that Civil Code section 1812.5095 applied and exempted them from employer liability. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Altruist's petition, upholding the finding that Valenzuela was an employee. The Board found Altruist failed to meet all the statutory requirements for independent contractor status under the Civil Code and that Valenzuela's circumstances indicated an employer-employee relationship under the *Borello* factors. Specifically, Valenzuela's inability to freely renegotiate pay and her belief that Altruist could terminate her employment were critical to the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantFindings of Fact and AwardIndustrial InjuryLow BackLeft LegHome Care ServicesRight ElbowRight Arm
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 58 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