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. 2020 NY Slip Op 08017 [192 AD3d 91]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2020

Sandoval v. Leake & Watts Servs., Inc.

Eduardo Sandoval, a nonverbal autistic resident, suffered burns from a heated potato masher at a residential facility operated by Leake and Watts Services, Inc. (L&W). His co-guardians sued L&W, its employees Asialone Edwards and Wendell Chavies, alleging battery, negligence, and negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training. The Supreme Court denied L&W's and Edwards' motions for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified this decision, dismissing claims against L&W based on respondeat superior, but affirmed the denial of summary judgment for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training claims, and for Edwards' individual claims. The court highlighted L&W's failure to adequately check employee references and that the potential for abuse was foreseeable based on L&W's own training materials.

Negligent hiringNegligent retentionNegligent supervisionNegligent trainingRespondeat superiorSummary judgmentAutismResidential facilityEmployee misconductPropensity to commit injury
References
15
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06187 [233 AD3d 761]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Jaimes-Gutierrez v. 37 Raywood Dr., LLC

The plaintiff, Manuel Jaimes-Gutierrez, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which denied his motion for summary judgment on liability for violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), and granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. Jaimes-Gutierrez sustained injuries after falling from pull-down attic stairs while installing an alarm system at a construction site. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, finding that the pull-down attic stairs served as a safety device under Labor Law § 240 (1) and that their failure violated Labor Law § 241 (6) by not meeting safety specifications under 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (b) (1). Consequently, the Appellate Division granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on these Labor Law violations and denied the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss those specific causes of action, affirming the remainder of the order with costs to the plaintiff.

Labor LawScaffold LawLadder AccidentConstruction Site InjuryPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionNondelegable DutyAbsolute LiabilityAttic Stairs
References
16
Case No. CV-23-1969
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Jaime Serrano

Claimant, Jaime Serrano, a housekeeper, was injured at work in 2014, leading to established claims for left shoulder and lower back injuries, and later consequential depression. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found a permanent total disability. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding insufficient credible medical evidence to support a permanent total disability and subsequently denied the claimant's application for reconsideration. The Appellate Division affirmed both Board decisions, crediting the medical opinions of the treating physician and an orthopedic surgeon who concluded that the claimant was capable of some work and gainful employment, thus supporting the Board's finding. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Board's denial of reconsideration, as the arguments presented merely reiterated challenges to the initial Board decision.

Permanent Total DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsRotator Cuff SurgeryConsequential DepressionLabor Market AttachmentMedical EvidenceSchedule Loss of Use
References
8
Case No. ADJ8855494
Regular
Nov 06, 2013

MARIA SANDOVAL vs. GCA SERVICES GROUP, INC., TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Maria Sandoval's petition for reconsideration. Sandoval sought to reopen her case alleging knee surgery and temporary disability after previously stipulating to a 5% permanent disability award. The Board found no competent evidence to support Sandoval's new claims, as her physician had declared her permanent and stationary. Furthermore, the Board held that stipulations are binding and Sandoval failed to show good cause to set aside the award, though she remains within the five-year period to petition for new and further benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations with Request for AwardPermanent DisabilityTemporary DisabilityMedical TreatmentWCJDr. HaberAmended StipulationsPetition to Reopen
References
2
Case No. ADJ8981807
Regular
Feb 04, 2019

ALEXANDRA SANDOVAL vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECEPTION CENTER AND REHABILITATION, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involved Alexandra Sandoval's workers' compensation claim against the State of California. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Sandoval's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's findings, giving great weight to their credibility determination of the witness. The decision hinges on the interpretation of Labor Code Section 5412, specifically the date an employee has knowledge of a cumulative injury being work-related. The Board found no substantial evidence to overturn the WCJ's determination regarding this knowledge.

Labor Code § 5412date of injurycumulative injurytemporary disabilitypermanent disabilitystatute of limitationscredibility determinationWCJ reportmedical advicereasonable diligence
References
9
Case No. 535483
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Jaime Espinoza

Claimant, a safety manager, was injured in a parking area adjacent to his construction site after his shift while pulling a gate, sustaining a bicep and rotator cuff injury. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, which were denied by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board, concluding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment as the parking area was not part of the job site or controlled by the employer. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding that claimant's uncontradicted testimony established he was instructed to park in that area and that construction materials were stored there, creating a sufficient nexus between the construction site and the parking area to extend the employment premises. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentParking Area InjuryPremises DoctrineArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentConstruction SiteEmployer ControlNexusRemittal
References
20
Case No. ADJ7527787
Regular
Jun 27, 2014

JAIME MADRIGAL vs. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY, INTERCARE

This case involves applicant Jaime Madrigal's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The original award, based on stipulations, granted Madrigal 25% permanent disability for a left knee injury and provided for future medical benefits. Madrigal sought to overturn the award, claiming his attorney failed to account for future medical issues and additional disabilities like sleep and psychological disorders. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding no evidence of misleading statements or procedural errors, and noting Madrigal's ongoing access to future medical care and the ability to reopen his claim for new or further disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations with Request for AwardPermanent DisabilityIndustrial InjuryLeft Knee InjuryFuture Medical BenefitsBus DriverSleep DisorderPsychological Disorder
References
0
Case No. ADJ15875592; ADJ16732971
Regular
Aug 25, 2025

JAIME LLAMAS vs. CITY OF ANAHEIM, CITY OF DOWNEY

Applicant Jaime Llamas, a police officer, sustained a cumulative brain injury (cancer) while employed by the City of Downey and the City of Anaheim. The WCJ found both employers jointly and severally liable. Defendant City of Downey sought reconsideration, challenging the last injurious exposure and their liability for temporary disability. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original Findings and Award, and substituted new findings. The Board confirmed the cumulative injury, clarified employment periods, affirmed the industrial presumption for both employers, established a specific liability period (December 21, 2016, through December 21, 2017) based on medical evidence of latency, and deferred issues of contribution between the employers.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of AnaheimCity of DowneyLabor Code section 4850Labor Code section 3212.1Labor Code section 5500.5last injurious exposurecumulative injurypolice officerbrain cancer
References
40
Case No. ADJ7479305, ADJ7440325
Regular
Sep 01, 2015

JAIME MARTINEZ vs. JDCORP INC, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Jaime Martinez's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The petition was submitted more than 25 days after the WCJ's decision, exceeding the statutory filing deadline. The WCAB has no jurisdiction to consider untimely petitions, and even if it had been timely, it would have been denied on the merits. The Board also noted deference to the WCJ's credibility determinations if the petition had reached that stage.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWCAB RulesWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeCredibility DeterminationsLabor Code SectionsCode of RegulationsDismissal OrderApplicant
References
5
Case No. ADJ8012038
Regular
Feb 22, 2013

JAIME SILVA vs. SAPA EXTRUSIONS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify that the issue of applicant Jaime Silva's shoulder injury was deferred, not fully adjudicated. The original findings only addressed lumbar and cervical spine injuries, consistent with the trial being set for "AOE/COE only." This decision effectively rescinds and substitutes the previous findings to explicitly state that all other issues, including additional body parts, are deferred. The Board also cautioned defense counsel regarding improper filing practices.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injurylumbar spinecervical spineLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)shoulder injurydeferred issuesbody parts injuredMinutes of HearingSummary of Evidence
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 101 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