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

Prevost v. New York State Department of Social Services

The petitioners, maternal grandparents, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the State Commissioner of Social Services and the Warren County Department of Social Services. They sought to expunge a report from the State Central Register indicating inadequate guardianship concerning their grandson, Justin. Justin had been placed in foster care, and concerns arose about his behavior after monthly visits with the petitioners, prompting a psychiatrist to recommend discontinuing overnight visits. The psychiatric report detailed Justin's anger towards his grandmother and later allegations of diapering. Despite the petitioners' denials and claims of bias, the agency's decision to indicate inadequate guardianship was upheld after administrative review and a fair hearing. The court ultimately confirmed the determination, citing substantial evidence based on Justin's consistent accounts.

Child protective servicesInadequate guardianshipFoster careAdoption eligibilityCPLR article 78 proceedingAdministrative reviewExpungement of reportHearsay evidenceCredibility determinationSocial Services Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ross v. Nestle Prepared Foods Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Inc., sought damages for injuries sustained while cleaning a machine at work. The Supreme Court dismissed the amended complaint against Nestle, citing the exclusivity provisions of Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the 'dual capacity doctrine' should apply since Nestle designed the machine for its employees' exclusive use. The appellate court rejected this contention, referencing prior case law, and unanimously affirmed the lower court's order of dismissal without costs.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityDual Capacity DoctrinePersonal Injury ClaimIndustrial AccidentAppellate Court AffirmanceEmployer LiabilityMachine SafetyNew York Workers' CompensationMotion to Dismiss GrantedEmployee Rights
References
3
Case No. ADJ526691 (LBO 0329338) ADJ3636578 (VNO 0535001)
Regular
Oct 22, 2019

JITKA VAN DYNE-PARMET vs. UNITED AIRLINES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to United Airlines regarding a 100% permanent disability award for Jitka Van Dyne-Parmet. Defendant argued the award improperly added multiple disabilities instead of combining them per the applicable rating schedule. The Board rescinded the award due to an inadequate trial record lacking clear stipulations and admitted evidence. The case is returned to the trial level to prepare a proper record for a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUnited AirlinesPermissibly Self-InsuredSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical ExaminersMultiple Disabilities Table1997 Rating Schedule
References
1
Case No. ADJ9331983
Regular
Oct 21, 2014

VANESSA SABALLOS vs. SEARS HOLDINGS CORP., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal due to substantial prejudice and irreparable harm. The applicant, who had recently dismissed her attorney, appeared at a settlement conference without her case file and relevant documents. She is also in the process of securing new legal representation. The Board rescinded the trial setting order, emphasizing that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy given these circumstances. The case is remanded for a status conference to allow the applicant to obtain counsel and prepare adequately.

Petition for RemovalWCJ OrderSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable InjuryNew Legal RepresentationDiscoveryStatus ConferenceApplication for Adjudication of ClaimSales AssociatePsyche Injury
References
2
Case No. ADJ8067245
Regular
Apr 23, 2015

ISABEL DIMAS vs. CLIFTON'S CAFETERIA, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered By ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Preferred Scan, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision to dismiss Preferred Scan's lien for failing to meet its burden of proof. Specific grounds for dismissal included failure to establish reasonableness and necessity of charges, improper service of exhibits, and inadequate evidence preparation. While the lien claimant's services could have been considered legitimate medical-legal costs for a contested claim, the other evidentiary failures were sufficient to uphold the lien's dismissal.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationWCJFindings and OrdersDismissed lienBurden of proofAOE/COEMedical-legal costsContested claimReasonableness and necessity
References
0
Case No. ADJ11446749; ADJ11446748
Regular
Apr 28, 2023

STEVEN CORSARO vs. MENTOR NETWORK, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a previous decision that found the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury to his right leg. The Board returned the case to the trial level due to an inadequate record, as the Workers' Compensation Judge failed to prepare necessary documentation and admit key evidence. Furthermore, the Board noted that medical evidence is required to establish causation for repetitive traumatic injuries, and lay testimony alone is insufficient for this determination. Therefore, further proceedings are necessary to develop both the factual and medical records before a new decision can be rendered.

AOE/COEReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJPQMELay testimonyMedical evidenceLabor Code § 5313Minutes of HearingSummary of Evidence
References
11
Case No. ADJ6555208
Regular
Apr 26, 2010

CARLOS GAYTAN vs. ROTATION DYNAMICS CORPORATION, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case involves applicant Carlos Gaytan's claim for workers' compensation benefits, stemming from a September 19, 2008 injury. The administrative law judge (WCJ) took the case off calendar to allow the defendant to obtain a Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), which applicant argued was untimely. The Appeals Board dismissed applicant's petition for reconsideration as the WCJ's order was interlocutory, not a final decision. However, the Board granted removal due to an inadequate and unclear record, rescinding the WCJ's order and remanding the case for proper record preparation and a new decision.

Labor Code section 4062Panel QMEPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalInterlocutory procedural ordersFinal orderMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedAgreed Medical EvaluatorsPermanent and stationary report
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Group For The South Fork, Inc. v. Wines

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by a petitioner against the Planning Board of the Town of Southampton. The petitioner challenged the Board's preliminary approval of a subdivision application, arguing an inadequate environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Supreme Court annulled the Planning Board's determination and directed the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the court finding that the petitioner's claims were not time-barred and that the Planning Board's issuance of a 'conditioned negative declaration' was an unauthorized departure from SEQRA, lacking a 'hard look' and 'reasoned elaboration' for its environmental impact determination.

CPLR Article 78Environmental ReviewSEQRAPlanning BoardSubdivision ApplicationDraft Environmental Impact StatementConditioned Negative DeclarationStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewLiteral Compliance
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2014

Myiow v. City of New York

The plaintiff, an employee of Brooklyn Welding Corp., was injured at Harlem Hospital when he fell 13-14 feet from a flatbed truck while preparing steel beams for hoisting, after a piece of dunnage broke. He moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), arguing a lack of proper safety devices. The defendants cross-moved, contending the accident was not an elevation-related hazard contemplated by the statute. The motion court granted the plaintiff's motion and denied the defendants' cross-motion, a decision subsequently affirmed on appeal. The court found that a fall from 13-14 feet constitutes an elevation-related risk and that the provision of an inadequate safety harness established liability.

elevation-related risksummary judgmentliabilityinadequate safety devicesconstruction accidentfall from heightflatbed truckdunnageLabor Law § 240 (1)appellate division
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06886
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2022

Castillo v. TRM Contr. 626, LLC

The plaintiff, Noel Castillo, was injured after falling from an A-frame ladder while preparing a window for painting. He testified that the six- to eight-foot-tall ladder was in poor condition and had to be leaned against a wall in a closed position due to heavy boxes obstructing the workspace. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted Castillo's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, citing that a statutory violation is established when a ladder shifts, slips, or collapses, especially when workplace conditions prevent proper securement. The court found that prior cases involving electrical shocks were distinguishable, reaffirming liability for gravity-related falls from inadequately secured ladders.

Ladder AccidentConstruction SafetyWorkplace HazardSummary Judgment GrantedAppellate AffirmationLabor Law ComplianceGravity-Related AccidentUnsafe EquipmentPersonal Injury ClaimContractor Liability
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 916 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