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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Joyner v. Event Design Associates, Inc.

Claimant was retained by Event Design Associates, Inc. (EDA) to transport furniture and event props for a party. While en route to a hotel during this assignment, claimant was involved in an automobile accident and sustained serious injuries. Subsequently, claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits, asserting an employer-employee relationship with EDA. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled in favor of the claimant, finding that an employment relationship existed. EDA appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship, based on factors such as EDA's control over the work, method of payment, and right to terminate.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorSubstantial EvidenceControl TestAppellate ReviewAutomobile AccidentNew YorkWorkers' Compensation BoardTemporary Employment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nautilus Insurance v. Matthew David Events, Ltd.

Nautilus Insurance Company sought a declaration that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Matthew David Events (MDE) in a personal injury action brought by Timothy Shea. Shea, an employee of a subcontractor hired by MDE, was injured while working at an event planned by MDE. Nautilus disclaimed coverage due to MDE's failure to provide timely notice and an employee exclusion in the policy. The motion court denied Nautilus's summary judgment, finding the employee exclusion ambiguous. The appellate court reversed, holding that the employee exclusion, which broadly defined 'employee' to include those 'contracted for' the insured, clearly applied to Shea, an employee of MDE's subcontractor. The court concluded that Nautilus had met its burden in demonstrating the exclusion's applicability.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory Judgment ActionEmployee Exclusion ClauseContract InterpretationSubcontractor Employee InjuryTimely Notice ProvisionSummary Judgment ReversalAppellate Court DecisionCommercial General Liability PolicyBodily Injury Claim
References
21
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01347
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2021

Treacy v. Inspired Event Productions, LLC

Peter Treacy, a Teamsters' Union laborer, was injured on a loading dock when a crate fell on him while unloading materials for an event. He subsequently filed claims against multiple defendants under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing Treacy's claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Treacy was not a covered worker under the Labor Law as his duties were limited to unloading materials on a permanent loading dock and he was not involved in the actual construction being performed at the site.

Worker injuryloading docksummary judgmentLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241(6)construction workerscope of employmentappellate reviewTeamsters' Unionpremises liability
References
7
Case No. ADJ9567706
Regular
Oct 09, 2015

Sally Nunes vs. CITY OF SANTA MARIA

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the medical record regarding the applicant's psyche injury, as the WCJ's finding relied too heavily on the applicant's perceptions rather than actual employment events. The Board upheld the exclusion of the defendant's witness due to their failure to timely provide discovery, deeming it an appropriate sanction for a discovery violation. The case is returned to the trial level for the physician to clarify causation and for the WCJ to issue a new decision on all submitted issues. This action is necessary because the initial medical opinion lacked sufficient analysis of actual work events and the applicant's undisclosed personal history impacted the original findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative Trauma InjuryPsycheAustin O'DellWitness StatementDiscovery ObligationDue ProcessRolda v. Pitney BowesLabor Code section 3208.3
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. City of New York Fire Department

Petitioners, the New York Times Company and Jim Dwyer, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking the disclosure of records from the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), related to the events of September 11, 2001. Their request included oral histories of FDNY personnel and radio communications. The FDNY denied parts of the request, citing exemptions for law enforcement purposes, intra-agency materials, and personal privacy. The court ruled that the FDNY failed to demonstrate the applicability of the law enforcement exemption. Consequently, the court ordered the disclosure of factual portions of the oral histories, the 911 tapes and transcripts of family members who waived privacy, and non-intra-agency parts of operator, dispatcher, and unit communications, while denying petitioners' request for attorneys' fees.

Freedom of Information LawFOILPublic RecordsSeptember 11World Trade CenterFDNYOral HistoriesRadio CommunicationsPrivacy ExemptionLaw Enforcement Exemption
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Santos v. American Museum of Natural History

Guaquin Garcia died after a scaffold fall during renovations at a building leased by the American Museum of Natural History. His estate sued the Museum and the general contractor for wrongful death. The Museum moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked Labor Law liability as it didn't own, contract for, or supervise the work. The Supreme Court denied this motion, but on appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court found the Museum, as a lessee, was not liable under Labor Law § 240, having neither contracted for nor supervised the renovation work, and thus lacked authority over safety measures.

Wrongful DeathScaffold AccidentLabor Law Section 240Summary Judgment AppealPremises LiabilityLessee LiabilityRenovation ProjectWorksite SafetyAppellate CourtBuilding Owner Responsibility
References
2
Case No. ADJ2417702
Regular
Jun 18, 2012

SANDRA MEJIA vs. JACKSON'S CATERING & EVENTS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration in *Mejia v. Jackson's Catering & Events* because it was not verified, violating Labor Code section 5902. Had it been verified, the Board would have denied it on the merits. The lien claimant failed to prove the medical necessity of transportation services, and the defendant was not required to prove compliance with certain notification requirements. The Board also admonished the petitioner for failing to adhere to form requirements for filed documents.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code section 5902DismissedMedically reasonableNecessaryLabor Code section 4610(g)Medical provider network noticesMPNForm requirements
References
3
Case No. ADJ2198671 (MON 0357212)
Regular
Dec 12, 2012

DANALEE FOWLER vs. WOLFGANG PUCK CATERING EVENTS, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

This case involves an applicant who sustained an admitted industrial injury to her left ankle and other body parts. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record. The Board found the trial judge's reliance on a vocational expert's opinion for 100% permanent disability was improper. Specifically, the expert based his conclusion on medical information outside his expertise and an unsubstantiated history of seizures. The matter is returned to the trial level for further development regarding vocational rehabilitation and gainful employment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityVocational ExpertAgreed Medical ExaminerChronic Regional Pain SyndromeReflex Sympathetic DystrophyLumbar Epidural CatheterSpinal Stimulator
References
1
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01219
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2021

Robinson v. Foremost Glatt Kosher Caterers, Inc.

Plaintiff Barry Robinson initiated a class action against Foremost Glatt Kosher Caterers, Inc., alleging the company withheld mandatory gratuity charges from catering service workers in violation of Labor Law § 196-d. Foremost, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against Kensington Event Staffing, seeking indemnification. The Supreme Court denied Kensington's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the lower court's decision. The court granted Kensington's motion to dismiss, finding that Foremost failed to state a cause of action for implied indemnification, as there were no allegations that Kensington wrongfully withheld charges or influenced Foremost's decision to retain them.

GratuitiesWage OrderImplied IndemnificationThird-Party ComplaintMotion to DismissLabor LawAppellate ReviewCatering IndustryWorkers' Rights
References
3
Case No. ADJ4664471
Regular
Jul 14, 2010

WILLIAM ROBERTS vs. WESTEN ENVIRONMENMTAL ENGINEERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a decision that denied his claim for psychiatric injury. The Board found the petition was skeletal and failed to cite legal principles or evidence. Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving work events were the predominant cause of his alleged psychiatric disorder due to credibility issues and an inaccurate history provided to medical evaluators. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report and recommendation in its entirety.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedPsychiatric InjuryPredominant CauseCredibility DeterminationInaccurate HistoryBurden of ProofIntoxication DefenseNeurologistPsychiatrist
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 979 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