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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mejia v. Astrue

Pro se plaintiff Joseph Mejia challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying him Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Mejia alleged disability due to heart failure and high blood pressure since October 2007. Administrative Law Judge Robin J. Arzt denied the application on May 28, 2009, finding Mejia's impairments were severe but did not meet listed impairments and that he retained the residual functional capacity for light work. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck reviewed the decision and found it supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, affirming the denial of benefits.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security Income BenefitsCongestive Heart FailureHypertensionCardiomyopathyResidual Functional CapacityALJ Decision ReviewSubstantial Evidence ReviewTreating Physician Rule
References
82
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06863 [188 AD3d 574]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2020

Mejia v. Unique Dev. Holding Corp

Plaintiff Santos Mejia sustained injuries when a load of lumber fell from a pallet during hoisting at a construction site, striking him. The Supreme Court initially granted Mejia partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed claims against defendant Certified Lumber Corporation. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order, reinstating Mejia's common-law negligence claim against Certified and defendant Montrose Park, LLC's cross claims for contribution and indemnification against Certified. The court found triable issues of fact concerning Certified's negligence in securing or unloading the lumber, while affirming the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, noting Mejia's activity was covered under the statute.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceContributionIndemnificationAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyFalling ObjectTriable Issues of FactPremises Liability
References
6
Case No. ADJ7719327
Regular
Dec 03, 2013

JOSE MEJIA vs. TERRA VISTA MANAGEMENT, INC., TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY

This is an interim order by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granting a petition for removal in the case of Jose Mejia v. Terra Vista Management, Inc. The WCAB found good cause to remove the case from the trial level, adopting the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report. The matter is now returned to the WCJ for further proceedings and a new decision. This decision is not final and parties retain the right to seek reconsideration of the WCJ's future ruling.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDecision After RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeTrial LevelFurther ProceedingsNot a Final DecisionReconsiderationTravelers Casualty & Surety CompanyTerra Vista Management
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. 2022 NY Slip Op 01449 [203 AD3d 815]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2022

Mejia v. 69 Mamaroneck Rd. Corp.

The plaintiff, Roger Mejia, a roofer, sustained personal injuries after falling through an unguarded hole on a roof during construction work. He commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied his motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but granted it for Labor Law § 241 (6). On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order regarding Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court found that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to provide adequate safety devices against an elevation-related risk, which was a proximate cause of Mejia's injuries, and that the plaintiff's conduct was not the sole proximate cause.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentLiabilityElevation-related RiskProximate CauseSafety DevicesConstruction AccidentRooferUncovered OpeningAppellate Division
References
10
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
Showing 1-10 of 694 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