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. ADJ14649906
Regular
Sep 08, 2025

JUAN CARLOS HERNANDEZ vs. YMCA OF THE FOOTHILLS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant Juan Carlos Hernandez's Petitions for Reconsideration and Removal. The Board aims to conduct a further review of the merits of the petitions and the entire record, citing concerns about the lack of evidence supporting the initial Findings and Orders by WCJ Bushin, which awarded a third-party credit of $147,625.51 to the defendants. The decision ensures due process and a comprehensive adjudication of factual and legal issues before a final ruling. The Board also noted the timeliness of its action in accordance with Labor Code section 5909(a) and admonished applicant's counsel for procedural violations.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalThird-Party CreditNet RecoveryDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceLabor Code 5909EAMSWCJAppeals Board
References
26
Case No. ADJ4661956
Regular
Dec 24, 2008

JUAN HERNANDEZ vs. AMERICAN WASTE INDUSTRIES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND INSURED RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration in the case of Juan Hernandez v. American Waste Industries. The Board adopted the WCJ's report as the basis for denial, and also noted the applicant's objection to the Notice of Intention to Submit was untimely filed. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was formally denied.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationWCJNotice of Intention to SubmitDENIEDAMERICAN WASTE INDUSTRIESSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDADJ4661956JUAN HERNANDEZRiverside
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02157 [193 AD3d 733]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2021

Matter of Hernandez v. Port Wash. Union Free Sch. Dist.

Edwin Hernandez, a motor equipment operator, was terminated from his employment with the Port Washington Union Free School District after sustaining injuries on the job and subsequently being charged with misconduct for allegedly being out of work on workers' compensation while able to perform his duties. Following a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75, a hearing officer found Hernandez guilty of 14 disciplinary charges and recommended termination, which the District adopted. Hernandez commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the administrative determination, finding it was supported by substantial evidence and that the penalty of termination was not shocking to one's sense of fairness, thus confirming the determination and dismissing the petition.

Employee TerminationMisconductCivil Service Law § 75CPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LeaveDisciplinary ChargesPublic Employment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1998

Hernandez v. Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman

Plaintiff Sumaira Hernandez filed an action against her employer, Defendant Jackson Lewis, alleging quid pro quo and hostile work environment sexual harassment, unlawful retaliation, and unlawful discrimination based on race and national origin, pursuant to Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law. Hernandez claimed that a billing coordinator, Mr. Mack, solicited sexual favors in exchange for overtime, and that the comptroller, Mr. Patterson, engaged in discriminatory practices regarding work assignments, bonuses, and promotions, and responded inappropriately to her complaints. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing prompt action and insufficient evidence for various claims. The Court denied the motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding triable issues of fact regarding employer liability, quid pro quo harassment, hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro QuoRetaliationDiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Goord

Juan Hernandez, a pro se plaintiff, sued twenty-three correctional facility employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged harassment, retaliation, and conspiracy during his incarceration at Sing Sing and Green Haven Correctional Facilities. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and provide a short and plain statement. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing claims related to a 1998 cell fire due to issue preclusion, as well as claims against certain defendants for lack of personal involvement or for monetary damages in official capacities. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the plaintiff's retaliation and conspiracy claims, finding that Hernandez had adequately pled these claims and that qualified immunity did not apply to the alleged actions of retaliation.

Prisoner RightsSection 1983RetaliationConspiracyMotion to DismissPro Se LitigantQualified ImmunityCollateral EstoppelCorrectional FacilitiesFirst Amendment Rights
References
51
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03378
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2021

Hernandez v. 767 Fifth Partners, LLC

Tommy Hernandez, the plaintiff, was injured when the plywood platform of a baker's scaffold collapsed beneath him while he was installing window soffits. He moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, which was granted by the Supreme Court, New York County. The third-party defendant, J.P. Phillips, Inc., appealed, arguing that Hernandez was the sole proximate cause of the accident. However, Phillips failed to provide proof that the scaffold was an adequate safety device. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's order, finding that potential comparative negligence did not preclude summary judgment as Phillips's foreman was aware of workers moving scaffolds in the manner described.

Scaffold CollapseLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate AffirmationWorkplace AccidentConstruction SafetyThird-Party ActionComparative NegligenceNew York Appellate DivisionWorker Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 1989

Hernandez v. New York City

The plaintiff, Antonio Hernandez, was seriously injured after falling through an unguarded opening during a reconstruction project at the St. George Terminal of the Staten Island Ferry. He sued the City of New York, as owner, and Sylvestri Contracting Corporation, the general contractor, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 for failing to provide proper safeguards. Hernandez moved for partial summary judgment on liability, but the Supreme Court, Richmond County, denied his motion. This appellate court affirmed that denial, finding a factual issue as to whether the opening was 'reasonably required for proper construction,' which is a statutory exception to the planking requirement under Labor Law § 241 (4). Therefore, the plaintiff did not establish a right to judgment as a matter of law regarding the defendants' duty.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentStatutory ExceptionPlanking RequirementNondelegable DutyGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. CA 10-02273
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2011

MAZURETT, JUAN v. ROCHESTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

The plaintiffs, Juan Mazurett and Theresa Mazurett, commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against the Rochester City School District after Juan Mazurett was injured in a fall from a collapsing scaffold at a construction site. The accident occurred while he was attempting to climb the scaffold provided by his employer, the general contractor. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and partially denied the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the plaintiffs established a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the scaffold's collapse. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident, finding no evidence that the plaintiff refused to use available safety devices.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor Law ViolationConstruction Site SafetyProximate CauseSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewWorker SafetyStatutory DutyNew York Law
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05813 [198 AD3d 564]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2021

Hernandez v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

Plaintiff Ramon Hernandez sued Consolidated Edison for negligence after his hand was pulled into a bread machine operating in reverse due to Con Ed's faulty rewiring of subterranean electrical cables. A jury found Con Ed negligent and awarded Hernandez damages for past and future pain and suffering, as well as lost earnings. Con Ed's motion to set aside the jury verdict was denied by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision. The court found that the trial evidence sufficiently supported the jury's verdict regarding Con Ed's negligence and the awarded damages, and dismissed Con Ed's other contentions.

NegligenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryElectrical WiringDamages AwardPain and SufferingLost EarningsJury InstructionsAppellate Procedure
References
9
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00901
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2020

Matter of Hernandez v. KNS Bldg. Restoration, Inc.

Claimant Guadalupe Hernandez sought workers' compensation benefits for knee and shoulder injuries sustained on his first day of work for KNS Building Restoration, Inc., who, along with insurer Zurich American Insurance Company, denied an employment relationship and coverage. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) credited the claimant's testimony, establishing the claim and finding KNS to be the responsible employer covered by a Zurich wrap-up policy, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence supporting the finding of an employer-employee relationship and the Board's credibility determinations. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Board's refusal to consider new evidence submitted for the first time on administrative review. The decision therefore upholds the finding that Hernandez was an employee of KNS and was injured at its construction site.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationInsurance CoverageConstruction AccidentAppellate ReviewNew EvidenceWrap-up PolicyEmployer Liability
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 548 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