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

Carlo v. Carlo

Plaintiff moved to enforce a provision of a divorce decree, seeking payment of compensation benefits awarded to defendant Peter De Carlo. The court found that the plaintiff failed to properly serve the defendant board and the Attorney-General, who represents the board, thereby failing to obtain proper jurisdiction. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to join the State Insurance Fund, the carrier liable for the compensation benefits at issue, as a party to the proceeding. Consequently, the court disagreed with Special Term’s determination, concluding that jurisdiction over the board was never properly obtained and the motion was effectively denied due to these procedural and jurisdictional defects.

Divorce Decree EnforcementService of ProcessJurisdictionAttorney-General RepresentationState Insurance FundWorkers' Compensation BenefitsFailure to Join Necessary PartiesProcedural DefectsAppellate ReviewMotion Denial
References
1
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08937 [145 AD3d 627]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2016

Vazquez v. Takara Condominium

Plaintiff Alberto Vazquez sustained injuries during his employment at a construction site owned by Takara Condominium, which had contracted Vazquez's employer, Nations Roof East, LLC, for repair work. Vazquez alleged a slip and fall incident while descending stairs. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted summary judgment to both Takara Condominium and Nations Roof East, LLC, dismissing Vazquez's claims for violations of Labor Law §§ 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence, and Takara's third-party action against Nations. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision. The court found Vazquez's affidavit to be inconsistent with his deposition testimony and determined that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) or that the defendants had created or had notice of a dangerous condition. Additionally, the court concluded that no negligent acts or omissions by Nations Roof East, LLC were established.

Construction site injurySummary judgmentLabor Law claimsSlip and fallAppellate reviewAffirmed decisionNegligenceIndustrial Code violationProximate causeDeposition testimony
References
3
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. 2016 NY Slip Op 08225
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2016

Vazquez v. Humboldt Seigle Lofts, LLC

The plaintiff, John Patricio Vazquez, appealed an order granting summary judgment to Dynatec Contracting, Inc. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Vazquez alleged he fell off a defective ladder and an unfinished staircase at a construction site. He sued property owner Humboldt Seigle Lofts, LLC, and construction manager Dynatec, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court found that Dynatec lacked supervisory control over Vazquez's work, did not create the dangerous conditions, and had no notice of them. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, dismissing the complaint against Dynatec.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentSupervisory ControlPremises LiabilityLadder FallStaircase FallCommon-Law NegligenceAppellate Division Second Department
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Juan PP. v. Yvette OO.

Yvette OO., the mother of Calmeek and Carlos, appealed an order from the Family Court of Albany County. The original order, entered May 13, 2004, granted custody of Carlos to his father, Juan PE, and extended the foster care placement of Calmeek, following a finding of neglect against the mother in 2002. The mother challenged the custody award to the father, citing his history of domestic violence. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, concluding that there was a sound and substantial basis in the record for the determination. The court noted the father's significant progress in anger management and parenting skills services, as well as a caseworker's recommendation, which supported the finding that awarding him custody was in Carlos's best interests, despite past concerns.

CustodyParental FitnessDomestic ViolenceSubstance AbuseChild NeglectFoster CareBest Interests of ChildAppellate ReviewFamily LawChild Protection
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00333 [168 AD3d 1240]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2019

Matter of Vazquez v. Skuffy Auto Body Shop

Luis Vazquez, an auto body technician, sustained a work-related back injury in 2013 and received workers' compensation benefits. His benefits were suspended in November 2015, and upon his application for reinstatement, the carrier alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a due to undisclosed work for a landscaping business. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found no violation, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, determining that Vazquez knowingly made material misrepresentations about his return to work and was subject to mandatory disqualification of benefits from April 25, 2016, to December 28, 2016, and future indemnity benefits after December 29, 2016. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Vazquez violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by making false representations and omissions regarding his work activity to obtain benefits. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Board's imposition of a penalty disqualifying him from future indemnity benefits, citing a pattern of deceit.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraudulent MisrepresentationDisqualification of BenefitsUndisclosed Work ActivityCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardIndemnity BenefitsLandscaping Business
References
5
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. CV-24-0601
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Juan Duta-Zumba

In July 2022, claimant Juan Duta-Zumba filed a workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained in a ladder fall while working for Level 5 Carpentry. The employer and its carrier, Urban Atelier Group, LLC and SiriusPoint America Insurance, controverted the claim, disputing employment. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) credited claimant's testimony, establishing Level 5 Carpentry as the employer and confirming work-related injuries. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The carrier appealed, contending the accident was unwitnessed and their due process rights were violated. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's findings regarding the accident and injuries, and that the carrier received adequate due process.

Workers' CompensationLadder FallWork-Related InjuryCredibility DeterminationDue ProcessStatutory PresumptionAppellate ReviewEmployment DisputeMedical EvidenceThird Judicial Department
References
14
Case No. KA 11-00996
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2012

DIAZ, CARLOS, PEOPLE v

This case involves an appeal concerning the classification of Carlos Diaz under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The Monroe County Court initially determined him to be a level three risk, despite the risk assessment instrument (RAI) indicating a level two risk. The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended an upward departure based on his offense pattern and schizophrenia diagnosis. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, found the County Court's upward departure to be an error, stating that the factors relied upon were either already accounted for by the RAI or lacked sufficient admissible evidence. Consequently, the Appellate Division modified the order, classifying Diaz as a level two risk, with Justice Fahey dissenting.

Sex Offender Registration ActRisk Assessment InstrumentUpward DepartureLevel Two RiskLevel Three RiskSchizophrenia DiagnosisMental IllnessAppellate ReviewForcible CompulsionSexual Offenses
References
10
Case No. CV-23-1881
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Carlos Jover

Carlos Jover appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying him permanent partial disability benefits due to a failure to demonstrate attachment to the labor market. Jover sustained work-related injuries in 2015, leading to a permanent partial disability classification in 2018 with a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity. The Board previously found insufficient evidence of job search efforts within his restrictions and later affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding that he failed to show labor market attachment, citing that many applied jobs required specialized qualifications, education, or English proficiency which he lacked. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Jover did not engage in a diligent and persistent independent job search within his medical limitations. The decision highlighted the Board's discretion in evaluating witness credibility and weighing conflicting evidence regarding labor market attachment.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLabor Market AttachmentWage-Earning CapacityJob Search EffortsMedical RestrictionsEnglish ProficiencyVocational DataSpinal Fusion SurgeryAppellate Review
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 470 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