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. VNO 0436397
Regular
Apr 08, 2008

JOSE CUELLAR vs. CENTURY PLAZA HOTEL, CNA TRANSCONTINENTAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Jose Cuellar's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The petition was filed more than 20 days after the original decision, and the additional 5 days for mailing did not cure the defect. Had the petition been timely, it would have been denied on the merits based on the administrative law judge's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWCAB Rule 10840Labor Code $\S$ 5903Code of Civil Procedure $\S$ 1013Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDismissalMailing TimeOfficial Address Record
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00066 [179 AD3d 427]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2020

Matter of Katherine U. (Jose U.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court order finding Jose U. sexually abused his child, Katherine U., and dismissed the appeal from the fact-finding order. The court upheld the use of closed-circuit television for the child's testimony, balancing the father's due process rights with the child's emotional well-being, as contemporaneous cross-examination by counsel was permitted. An affidavit from the child's social worker sufficiently established that in-court testimony would cause emotional harm. Furthermore, Jose U.'s prior criminal convictions for predatory sexual assault, rape, incest, and sexual abuse, involving the child, collaterally estopped him from contesting the abuse allegations in the family court petition.

Child abuseSexual abuseFamily LawAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessChild TestimonyClosed-circuit televisionCollateral EstoppelCriminal ConvictionEvidence Admissibility
References
3
Case No. ADJ9778324
Regular
Nov 08, 2017

JAIRO RAMOS vs. JTS JOSE TREE SERVICE, INC., JOSE MIGUEL SOTO, DANIEL SOTO, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury. The primary issue is determining the identity of the employer(s), with allegations of joint ownership/operation between JTS Jose Tree Service, Inc., Jose Miguel Soto, and Daniel Soto. Jose Soto's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely and procedurally deficient. Daniel Soto's petition was granted because the original findings lacked evidentiary support and the record required further development regarding employment status and potential licensing issues. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJTS Jose Tree ServiceJose Miguel SotoDaniel SotoUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundFindings of FactOrder of DeferralPetition for ReconsiderationJoint EmployersSubstantial Shareholder
References
19
Case No. No. 92
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2019

Jose Rivera v. State of New York

This New York Court of Appeals case addresses the State's vicarious liability for an assault committed by correction officers on an inmate. The inmate, Jose Rivera, was brutally attacked by Officer Michael Wehby and restrained by other officers, Femia and LaTour. The Court of Claims and Appellate Division found Wehby's actions were outside the scope of employment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Wehby's unprovoked and excessive force was a significant departure from his duties, thus precluding vicarious liability under respondeat superior. The dissenting judges argued that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether the other officers, who restrained Rivera, acted within the scope of their employment, potentially believing they were maintaining prison order.

Respondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityCorrectional Officer MisconductInmate AssaultScope of Employment DoctrineSummary Judgment AffirmationExcessive ForceCorrection Law ViolationsIntentional TortsAppellate Review
References
45
Case No. 533820
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Jose Perez

Claimant Jose Perez had an established claim for work-related injuries. A section 32 waiver agreement, including a payment of $300,000 and a Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) annuity, was approved by the Workers' Compensation Board in 2019. Perez's subsequent attempts to withdraw from the agreement were deemed untimely by the Board. However, the Board issued an amended decision deferring record development for 90 days, allowing the parties to negotiate a new agreement to clarify inconsistent MSA terms. The employer and carrier appealed this amended decision to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal as interlocutory, ruling that the Board's decision did not finally resolve all substantive issues and was therefore not a proper subject for immediate appellate review.

Workers' Compensation LawSection 32 Waiver AgreementMedicare Set-Aside AnnuityUntimely WithdrawalInterlocutory DecisionAppellate ReviewFinality of OrderProcedural DefermentNegotiated SettlementClaim Settlement
References
5
Case No. 532385
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

In the Matter of the Claim of Jose Urdiales

Claimant Jose Urdiales appealed a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board that denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits, alleging an occupational disease due to chemical exposure as a construction worker for Durite Concepts Inc/Durite USA. The employer and its carrier disputed the claim, including Urdiales's employment status and the nature of his duties. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) credited the employer's president's testimony over Urdiales's account, leading to the disallowance of the claim. The WCLJ's findings were affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board, which found the employer's witness more credible regarding the claimant's work history and rejected medical evidence based on Urdiales's less credible account. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the Board is the sole arbiter of witness credibility and that its determination of no causally-related occupational disease was supported by substantial evidence.

Occupational DiseaseAppellate DivisionCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceChemical ExposureRespiratory IllnessEmployment HistoryFact DeterminationBoard AffirmationWorkers' Compensation Benefits
References
8
Case No. CV-22-2294, CV-22-2299
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Jose Reyes Bonilla

Jose Reyes Bonilla and Marvin Reyes Bonilla, carpenters, filed workers' compensation claims after being injured in a motor vehicle accident while traveling to a job site in an employer-provided van. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed decisions that established their claims against XL Specialty Insurance, ruling that their injuries arose out of and in the course of their employment. XL Specialty appealed, arguing its policy did not cover commuting injuries and that it was not the proper carrier. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, finding XL Specialty failed to preserve its challenge and that the injuries were compensable due to the employer's control over transportation. The court also concluded that XL Specialty's policy exclusion was inapplicable as the transportation was incidental to the project.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentEmployment InjuriesCourse of EmploymentEmployer Provided TransportationInsurance Coverage DisputeWrap-up PolicyAppellate ReviewPreclusionPenalties
References
17
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01621 [236 AD3d 889]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2025

Marmolejo-Cuellar v. Spar Knitwear Corp.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court, Queens County's order which granted summary judgment to Spar Knitwear Corp. and Southern Contractors, LLC, dismissing claims for personal injuries brought by Ana Marmolejo-Cuellar and her husband. The plaintiff, a secretary, was injured after tripping on wood in an office owned by Spar Knitwear Corp. The court found that the injured plaintiff was not an "employee" within the meaning of the Labor Law, as her work was clerical and not related to construction or repair. Additionally, Spar Knitwear Corp. was deemed an out-of-possession landlord without a contractual or conduct-based duty to maintain the premises. Consequently, all causes of action alleging Labor Law violations and common-law negligence against Spar Knitwear Corp. were properly dismissed.

Personal injurypremises liabilitytrip and fallsummary judgmentLabor Lawcommon-law negligenceout-of-possession landlordstatutory interpretationemployee definitionconstruction work
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06970 [188 AD3d 616]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2020

Sanchez v. Delta Airlines, Inc.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted defendant Delta Airlines, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff Jose Junco Sanchez alleged he sustained injuries while at work. The court affirmed this decision, stating that plaintiff's claims against Delta, his employer, are barred by the exclusive remedy of the Workers' Compensation Law. Additionally, the plaintiff's argument regarding the intentional tort exception to the Workers' Compensation Law was deemed unpreserved and unavailing. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's order.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyIntentional Tort ExceptionDismissalAppellate DivisionFirst DepartmentEmployer LiabilityWorkplace InjuryBronx CountyUnpreserved Argument
References
2
Case No. ADJ10229956
Regular
Aug 13, 2018

VIRGIL GRAY vs. ARENA FOOTBALL LEAGUE, SAN JOSE SABERCATS, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE, UNINSURED EMPLOYER BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case denies the defendants' petition for reconsideration of a finding of joint employment for an industrial knee injury. The applicant, Virgil Gray, was found to be a joint employee of both the Arena Football League and the San Jose SaberCats, despite receiving paychecks from the League. Evidence such as the San Jose SaberCats' direct control over the applicant's work, provision of equipment, and housing, supported the finding that both entities exercised the right to direct and control his activities. The Appeals Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision, finding the totality of the record supported joint employment.

joint employmentspecial employergeneral employerArena Football LeagueSan Jose SaberCatsZurich American InsuranceUninsured Employer Benefits Trust Fundprofessional athleteindustrial injuryleft knee
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 660 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