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. 2023 NY Slip Op 06763 [222 AD3d 1013]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2023

Rodriguez v. 27-11 49th Ave. Realty, LLC

The plaintiff, Tomas Rodriguez, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to defendant Mana Products, Inc., dismissing the complaint against it. Rodriguez had sued 27-11 49th Avenue Realty, LLC, and Mana after a slip and fall in a factory. The defendants argued that the complaint against Mana was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, claiming Rodriguez was Mana's special employee. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendants established a prima facie case for summary judgment based on Rodriguez's deposition testimony, indicating Mana controlled his work details, thus establishing a special employment relationship as a matter of law.

Special Employee DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary Judgment GrantPersonal Injury ClaimAppellate Division Second DepartmentControl over WorkEmployer LiabilityPlaintiff's AppealDefendant's MotionSlip and Fall Accident
References
5
Case No. ADJ1282717 (LBO 0332013) ADJ1437663 (LBO 0333033) ADJ1830483 (LBO 0332918)
Regular
Mar 24, 2011

SUSAN RICHARDSON vs. PROSPECT HEALTH SOURCE MEDICAL GROUP, JAMES DANIEL, DANA EISENMAN, GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT INSURANCE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This Nunc Pro Tunc Order corrects a clerical error in a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The applicant's attorney, Vernon Goldwater, was erroneously misidentified in the Award section of the January 27, 2011 Decision. The Order amends the Award nunc pro tunc to correctly identify Mr. Goldwater as the attorney entitled to a 12% fee for temporary disability indemnity. All other aspects of the January 27, 2011 Decision remain unchanged.

nunc pro tuncclerical errorcorrecting awardtemporary disability indemnityself-procured medical treatmentmedical-legal costsfuture medical treatmentGranite State Insurance CompanyState Compensation Insurance FundCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2012

Next Phase Distribution, Inc. v. John Does 1-27

Plaintiff Next Phase Distribution, Inc. filed a motion seeking leave for early discovery to identify John Doe defendants who allegedly infringed copyright by downloading their pornographic film via BitTorrent. The Court initially ordered Next Phase to show cause why John Does 2-27 should not be severed. After reviewing Next Phase's response and considering a district-wide split in similar cases, the Court sua sponte exercised its discretion to sever and dismiss without prejudice all claims against John Does 2-27 due to potential for differing defenses, risk of false positives, and the sensitive nature of the subject matter. The Court then granted Next Phase’s Motion for Discovery solely for John Doe 1 and issued a protective order to maintain confidentiality, citing the need for information to identify John Doe 1 and the routine deletion of ISP logs.

Copyright InfringementBitTorrentPeer-to-peer networkJohn Doe defendantsExpedited discoverySeverance of claimsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 20(a)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 20(b)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 21Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 42(b)
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jacob v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant sustained work-related injuries in January 2000 and later sought workers’ compensation benefits alleging recurrence. An issue arose regarding the veracity of the medical history provided to the employer’s independent medical examiners, specifically concerning undisclosed prior similar injuries. A workers’ compensation law judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found that the claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a, leading to disqualification from wage replacement benefits. However, the Board authorized medical treatment for the January 2000 injuries. On cross appeals, the Board’s determination was affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the violation and the appropriateness of the penalties imposed.

Workers' Compensation Law Section 114-aMedical MisrepresentationWage Replacement Benefits DisqualificationMedical Treatment AuthorizationPrior Injuries DisclosureSubstantial Evidence ReviewIndependent Medical ExaminationWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewAffirmed Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lucas v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co.

Decedent Stanley Lucas, an electrician, died from generalized pancreatitis secondary to a ruptured pancreatic abscess, which was found to be a compensable injury. He was discovered lying on the ground at work by a co-worker after reportedly hurting himself on a plank, leading to a contusion on his pancreas. Medical testimony from Dr. Seymour Cutler and Dr. Lester M. Fox established a direct causal link between the work injury on January 23, 1975, and his death on January 27, 1975. The Workers' Compensation Board's finding that the claimant sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, resulting in a causally related death, was supported by substantial evidence. The decisions of the Board were affirmed on appeal.

Workers' Compensation Law § 118Corroboration of AccidentDecedent's DeclarationsExpert Medical TestimonyAppellate ReviewCausal RelationshipPancreatic InjuryEmployment-Related DeathSubstantial Evidence ReviewBoard Affirmation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 1981

Claim of Bock v. Burns, Van Kirk, Greene & Kafer

The respondent Workers’ Compensation Board moved to dismiss appeals filed by the appellant on March 27, 1980, May 7, 1980, and August 18, 1980. The court granted the Board's motion to dismiss the March 27 and May 7 appeals as moot due to a subsequent board determination. The August 18, 1980 appeal was dismissed because the underlying board decision, which merely referred the case to an impartial medical specialist, was nonfinal and therefore not appealable. The claimant's motion dated January 29, 1981, was granted only to the extent that the original board file could be provided as an exhibit. Another motion by the claimant dated March 16, 1981, seeking vacatur of decisions, consolidation of appeals, and change of venue, was denied.

Appeal DismissalMootnessNonfinal DecisionWorkers' Compensation AppealsMotion PracticeJudicial ReviewCase ReferralMedical SpecialistBoard FileConsolidation of Appeals
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Picone v. Putnam Hosp.

In 2002, claimant sustained a non-work-related left knee injury, followed by surgery. In 2011, claimant suffered a work-related left knee injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined a 35% schedule loss of use of the left leg, apportioning 50% to the prior non-work-related injury, resulting in a 17.5% award. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. Claimant appealed the apportionment, arguing it should not apply to a schedule loss of use award. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing medical evidence from two orthopedic surgeons supporting the apportionment of the schedule loss of use award between the work-related and prior non-work-related injuries.

Schedule loss of useApportionmentKnee injuryWorkers' compensation appealMedical opinionPrior injuryNon-work-related injuryWork-related injuryAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06918 [167 AD3d 27]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2018

Matter of Keanu S.

Keanu S., a juvenile delinquent, appealed the Family Court's denial of his renewed motion for specific findings to enable him to petition for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS). The Family Court denied the motion, ruling that placement in a juvenile delinquency matter does not satisfy the dependency requirement of 8 USC § 1101 (a) (27) (J). The Appellate Division, Second Department, agreed with the Family Court's determination, holding that Keanu S. was not an intended beneficiary of the SIJS provisions because his placement was due to criminal acts, not abuse, neglect, or abandonment. The Court affirmed the order, emphasizing that the SIJS scheme is intended for abused, neglected, or abandoned children, and that using juvenile delinquency adjudications as a conduit for SIJS would contradict congressional intent. The dissenting opinion argued that the plain language of the statute, federal immigration policy, and state law do not exclude children in juvenile delinquency placements from meeting the dependency requirement for SIJS.

Special Immigrant Juvenile StatusJuvenile DelinquencyDependency RequirementImmigration LawFamily Court DecisionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationChild CustodyAbuse and NeglectAbandonment
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Freilich v. Fleischer

This order affirms the denial of the defendant's motion to vacate a temporary injunction. The temporary injunction was originally granted on May 27, 1923. The court unanimously affirmed the denial, awarding twenty dollars in costs and disbursements, without providing a written opinion. The panel included Justices Martin, P. J., Merrell, McAvoy, O’Malley, and Untermyer, JJ.

temporary injunctionmotion to vacateappellate decisionaffirmedcosts and disbursementsno opinionjudicial paneldenial of motioncivil procedure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2006

Toussaint v. Angello

The petitioners sought a determination that the respondent, Commissioner of Labor, violated Labor Law § 27-a (4) (b) by not adopting a safety standard recommended by the New York State Occupational Safety and Health Hazard Abatement Board. The Supreme Court denied this petition, and that decision was subsequently affirmed. The appellate court clarified that the statute does not compel the Commissioner to automatically promulgate all Board recommendations. Instead, it mandates consultation and a showing of necessity for any new standard. The Commissioner's decision to return the proposal for further review was therefore deemed a lawful exercise of authority, not arbitrary or capricious.

Labor LawSafety StandardsOccupational SafetyHazard Abatement BoardCommissioner of LaborStatutory InterpretationPromulgation of RegulationsJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawMinisterial Duty
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,147 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