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. 2025 NY Slip Op 03795 [239 AD3d 942]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2025

Garcia v. Fed LI, LLC

The injured plaintiff, Jose Garcia, and his wife, suing derivatively, initiated an action after Mr. Garcia fell from an unsecured extension ladder while working on a commercial property. The property was owned by Fed LI, LLC, GSM LI, LLC, ICA LI, LLC, and SAF LI, LLC, and leased by Multi Packaging Solutions, Inc., with Mr. Garcia employed by J.P.S. Electric Co., Inc. (JPS). The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which the Supreme Court denied. The Appellate Division reversed this part of the order, granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding that a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) was established and was a proximate cause of the injuries, as the defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices or rebut the prima facie showing of negligence. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision regarding contractual indemnification, ruling that JPS was not contractually obligated to indemnify the MPS entities, as a post-accident purchase order's general reference to 'Terms and Conditions' was insufficient to establish a retroactive indemnification agreement.

Ladder FallConstruction Site InjuryLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment MotionIndemnification AgreementContract InterpretationRetroactivityThird Party LiabilityAppellate DivisionSuffolk County
References
22
Case No. ADJ9230683
Regular
Jul 07, 2014

JOSE GARCIA, Jorge Garcia, JORGE LUIS GARCIA vs. RAMTEX INC.; EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, RAMTEX INCORPORATED, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by applicant Jose Garcia challenging an administrative law judge's discovery rulings. The applicant sought specific documents, including witness statements and employee handbooks, which the defendant claimed did not exist. The judge ordered the production of the personnel file but denied the request for other documents, finding the defendant's representations credible and applicant's discovery requests lacking due diligence. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal, adopting the judge's reasoning that the petition was untimely and that no prejudice or irreparable harm resulted from the discovery rulings.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRamtex Inc.Employers Compensation Insurance CompanyADJ9230683Administrative Law JudgeReport of Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeVerified AnswerGood Faith InvestigationDeposition of Applicant
References
0
Case No. 533993
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Francisca Garcia (Garcia (dec'd), Miguel)

Claimant Francisca Garcia appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision disallowing her claim for death benefits. Her spouse, Miguel Garcia, a World Trade Center volunteer, died in 2016 from conditions established in his prior workers' compensation claim. Garcia filed for death benefits in 2020, which the Board ruled untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28. The Board also determined that Workers' Compensation Law Article 8-A did not apply to a death benefits claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that Article 8-A's exception to the two-year filing rule applied to the participant's disablement claim, not to a separate death benefits claim filed by a non-participant, thus the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 28. A dissenting opinion argued that Workers' Compensation Law § 163, by mentioning "injury or death," indicated Article 8-A's applicability to death benefits, suggesting the matter be remitted to address causation and timely filing.

Death Benefits ClaimWorld Trade Center VolunteerWorkers' Compensation Law § 28TimelinessStatutory InterpretationArticle 8-ALatent ConditionsPosttraumatic Stress DisorderGastroesophageal Reflux DiseaseObstructive Sleep Apnea
References
12
Case No. 93
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Francisca Garcia

Francisca Garcia, spouse of deceased volunteer Miguel Garcia, filed a death benefits claim more than two years after his death in July 2016. Miguel Garcia had received lifetime benefits for health conditions contracted while volunteering in the 9/11 World Trade Center recovery efforts. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) and Appellate Division disallowed the claim as untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, which sets a two-year statute of limitations for death benefits. The central legal question was whether Workers' Compensation Law § 168, which extends filing periods for 'participants' in WTC recovery, applies to claims by survivors. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that § 168's language, referring explicitly to 'a claim by a participant,' does not extend to claims made by beneficiaries, thus the claim remains barred by § 28.

Death Benefits ClaimWTC Volunteer9/11 Recovery WorkersStatute of Limitations ExtensionWorkers' Compensation Law Article 8-ASurvivor's Claim TimelinessParticipant DefinitionLegislative Intent InterpretationUntimely Filing DisallowanceAppellate Division Affirmation
References
3
Case No. 03-1956
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. Scoppetta

Plaintiff Michele Garcia, a member of a subclass in Nicholson v. Williams, sued officials and employees of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the City of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution. She alleged constitutional violations stemming from child protective proceedings initiated against her maliciously and without probable cause. Defendants moved to dismiss based on res judicata or, alternatively, qualified immunity for individual defendants. The court ruled that Garcia's malicious prosecution claim was not precluded by her prior suit (Garcia I) because the operative facts giving rise to the claim arose after Garcia I was filed and terminated. However, the court granted qualified immunity to the individual defendants, concluding that the law regarding the definition of a 'neglected child' and the justification for initiating neglect proceedings was not clearly established at the time of their actions, especially given pending certified questions to the New York Court of Appeals in Nicholson v. Scoppetta. The City's motion to dismiss was denied, and the court also denied certification for interlocutory appeal for both decisions.

Child Protective ProceedingsMalicious ProsecutionRes JudicataQualified ImmunityFederal Civil RightsDue ProcessFamily Court ActDomestic ViolenceChild NeglectSecond Circuit
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. Petrakis

This case concerns an appeal regarding a personal injury claim filed by Roberto Garcia and his wife against Peter Petrakis, the owner of a house where Garcia was injured in a fall. Initially, Petrakis was granted summary judgment, but this was later vacated upon renewal. The Appellate Division reversed the decision to vacate, thereby reinstating summary judgment in favor of Petrakis. The court found that Petrakis, as a one- or two-family homeowner, did not direct or control Garcia's work and lacked actual or constructive notice of any unsafe condition, thus exempting him from liability under Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241, and common-law negligence.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor LawOwner LiabilityConstruction AccidentLadder FallNegligenceAppellate ReviewHomeowner ExemptionNew York State Law
References
10
Case No. ADJ7397383
Regular
Dec 07, 2012

JOSE GARCIA vs. PRODUCTION PLUS PLUMBING, INC., MATRIX INSURANCE

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by applicant Jose Garcia concerning a workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely because it was not filed within the 25-day statutory period. This deadline included the 20 days allowed by Labor Code section 5903 plus 5 additional days for mailing per Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. Consequently, the Board adopted the administrative law judge's recommendation and dismissed the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013Dismissal OrderApplicantDefendant
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. J. C. Duggan, Inc.

Plaintiff Rafael Garcia, an employee of Capitol Knitting Mills Corp., suffered a herniated disk while assisting defendant J. C. Duggan, Inc., a moving company, with positioning a knitting machine. Garcia, whose role was to supervise equipment placement, allegedly helped move a machine at the request of Duggan's workers. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendant, ruling Garcia acted as a volunteer and his actions were unforeseeable. However, the appellate court modified this decision, denying summary judgment. The court found unresolved questions of fact regarding the defendant's duty of care, any potential breach, proximate cause, and whether Garcia was truly a volunteer given his employment context and the solicitation of his assistance.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentVolunteer DoctrineDuty of CareProximate CauseEmployment ScopeAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryHerniated DiscMoving Company Liability
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04540
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2021

Garcia v. Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P.

David Garcia, an employee of Temperature Systems, Inc. (TSI), sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder supplied by Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P. (Emerick) while working at one of Emerick's properties. Garcia sued Emerick alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence, prompting Emerick to file a third-party action against TSI for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied both Garcia's and Emerick's motions for summary judgment, and TSI's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted Garcia's cross-motion for discovery sanctions against Emerick for spoliation of evidence, determining that Garcia was entitled to a negative inference at trial due to the disposal of the ladder. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order in its entirety, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding whether Garcia was a recalcitrant worker and the sole proximate cause of his injuries, and whether the alleged contractual indemnification provision was enforceable.

Personal InjuryLabor LawElevation-related HazardsSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSpoliation of EvidenceNegative InferenceRecalcitrant WorkerProximate CauseSafe Place to Work
References
18
Case No. ADJ7882643
Regular
Apr 03, 2017

SERGIO RUIZ vs. JOSE GARCIA aka JOSE F. GARCIA aka JOSE GRANCISCO GARCIA doing business as JOHN GARCIA PAINT SERVICE, MELANIE A. BERRY AS A SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDER

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration that was dismissed for two primary reasons. Firstly, the petition was filed untimely, exceeding the statutory 25-day limit for filing after the WCJ's decision. Secondly, the petition failed to meet procedural requirements by not providing specific citations to the record or detailing the grounds for reconsideration, as mandated by relevant Labor Code sections and WCAB rules. Consequently, the Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition, leading to its dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCABWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJjurisdictional time limituntimely petitionspecific citations to the recordLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsRule 10842
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 978 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