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. ADJ9791919
Regular
Jan 27, 2023

MARK HILDEBRAND vs. JOSE ESPIRITU aka JOSE VARGAS dba THE HOME IMPROVEMENT HANDYMAN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration as untimely. The defendant failed to file their petition within the 25-day statutory period after the award was served by mail. The defendant's argument that they did not receive notice due to a prior address change was rejected because they failed to properly notify the WCAB of their new address as required by regulation. Therefore, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to consider the untimely petition.

Petition for Reconsiderationuntimely filingjurisdictional time limitservice by mailofficial address recordpro per defendantchange of addressnotice of intention to approvestipulations with request for awarduninsured employers benefits trust fund
References
4
Case No. ADJ8379348
Regular
May 04, 2015

GLEN DAVIS vs. HARBOR AMERICA, dba MR HANDYMAN OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; CIGA by its servicing facility, SEDGWICK CMS, for ULLICO CASUALTY CO., in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and denied its Petition for Removal. The defendant improperly sought reconsideration of a non-final order setting the matter for trial, and attached excessive exhibits in violation of procedural rules. While applicant's counsel also had procedural deficiencies, these did not impact the outcome. The WCAB adopted the judge's report and its own reasoning in reaching these decisions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Setting for TrialRule 10842Permanent DisabilityQMELabor Code section 4061(i)DORAdmonishment
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2003

Cruz v. Board of Managers of 140 West End Avenue Condominium

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a decision to dismiss the complaint against the defendants. The plaintiff, a handyman, alleged injury from falling off a defective ladder supplied by defendant Insignia, the condominium's managing agent. The court found that claims against the condominium, its board, and a fellow employee were not permissible due to Workers' Compensation Law. Additionally, the complaint against defendant Brown, an Insignia employee, was dismissed due to conclusory allegations of negligence. A cross appeal by Insignia Residential Group was dismissed as abandoned.

Workers' CompensationCPLR 3211Motion to DismissNegligenceEmployer LiabilityManaging Agent LiabilityDefective LadderSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2001

Erazo v. 136 East Management, Inc.

A building handyman initiated an action against the building's owner and management company for personal injuries sustained from a ladder fall. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which resulted in the dismissal of the complaint against the management company based on the Workers’ Compensation Law. Concurrently, the plaintiff’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment concerning liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) was denied. The court ultimately affirmed these rulings, concluding that the management company exercised comprehensive supervisory control over the plaintiff, thereby establishing a special employment relationship that barred the lawsuit.

Personal InjuryLadder FallSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeLabor Law § 240(1)Building ManagementSupervisory ControlEmployer LiabilityAffirmed DecisionCross Motion Denied
References
2
Case No. ADJ8242446
Regular
May 14, 2013

DOMINGO LOYA vs. ALEJANDRO BURGOS, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY

This case concerns Domingo Loya's claim for workers' compensation after a fall while repairing a roof. The applicant contended he was an employee hired by the homeowner, Alejandro Burgos, whose wife operated a daycare on the property. The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration, finding Loya excluded from coverage under Labor Code Section 3352(h). This exclusion applies because Loya worked fewer than 52 hours for the homeowner within the 90 days preceding his injury, and his work was deemed that of a handyman, not in the course of the homeowner's business.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 3352(h)HandymanDaycare FacilityStewart caseCourse of TradeBusiness PremisesBusiness Property
References
1
Case No. ADJ7934881
Regular
Apr 02, 2012

ERNIE PACHECO vs. LAURIE RECHTEGER OSBORN, FARMERS INSURANCE

This case concerns Ernie Pacheco, a handyman who sustained an injury on September 8, 2008, while working. The defendant, Laurie Rechteger Osborn and Farmers Insurance, petitioned for reconsideration of the original findings and award, arguing Pacheco did not meet the 52-hour threshold for coverage in the 90 days prior to his injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's report and recommendations. The WCJ found the defendant mischaracterized the applicant's testimony regarding hours worked, concluding that Pacheco did, in fact, exceed 52 hours when including all tasks. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedWCJ ReportGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.HandymanSlip and FallUpper ExtremitiesHeart/StrokeExclusion from Coverage52-Hour Rule
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2012

Roca v. 66-36 Yellowstone Boulevard Cooperative

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, issued an order on March 2, 2012, which denied the summary judgment motion filed by defendant Goodman Management. Goodman sought dismissal of the complaint and all cross claims, arguing that the action was precluded by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The plaintiff, a handyman employed by 66-36 Yellowstone Boulevard Corp., alleged injury from a fall off a ladder while painting. Goodman, acting as the building's managing agent, failed to demonstrate exclusive control over the plaintiff's work, a prerequisite for being considered a special employer under the Workers' Compensation Law. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, allowing the action against Goodman to proceed.

Summary judgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusivity provisionsSpecial employerManaging agentPremises liabilityLadder fallHandyman injuryControl over workAppellate review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Estrella v. Broadway 69 Associates

Claimant, a painter and handyman, was injured in a fall in 2004. He initially sued Broadway 69 Associates, the building owner, who then argued for an employer-employee relationship to limit liability to workers' compensation. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined claimant was employed by a management company, not Broadway 69, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board also declined to consider new evidence from Broadway 69. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in rejecting new evidence and substantial evidence to support the lack of an employer-employee relationship between claimant and Broadway 69 Associates, based on control of work, method of payment, and provision of materials by the management company.

Employer-employee relationshipWorkers' Compensation BoardSubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewDiscretion of BoardNew evidenceControl of workMethod of paymentManagement companyLiability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 1978

Claim of Carr v. Woods

Claimant Cecil M. Carr sustained a back injury after falling from a ladder while painting a home owned by Ann M. Woods. Woods initially classified Carr as an 'Independent Laborer,' but he filed a compensation claim, leading to a dispute over his employment status. Evidence showed Carr worked for Woods as a handyman for two decades across multiple properties, furnishing his own tools and being paid hourly, though no taxes were withheld. Despite these factors, the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a referee's decision, finding an employer-employee relationship existed due to Woods's significant control and direction over Carr's work, including the right to assign tasks and terminate employment. The board's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorScope of EmploymentControl TestSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLabor LawBack InjuryEmployment Status
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 1991

Grinnell Housing Development Fund Corp. v. Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union

Grinnell Housing Development Fund Corp. petitioned to vacate two arbitration awards in favor of Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO. The dispute arose from Grinnell's failure to comply with a collective bargaining agreement regarding staffing reductions after a handyman employee left and was not replaced. Arbitrator Arthur J. Flanagan issued awards directing Grinnell to reinstate the position and provide back pay and benefits. Grinnell's attempt to modify the award was denied. The case was removed from New York Supreme Court to federal court. The court denied Grinnell's motion, finding no undue prejudice from hearing delays or arbitrator misconduct, and granted the Union's cross-motion to confirm the awards.

Labor DisputeArbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementStaffing ReductionArbitration DelayArbitrator MisconductFederal Court JurisdictionVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardEmployment Law
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 13 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