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. ADJ940068
Regular
Jun 22, 2010

JUAN GUZMAN vs. PEAK HARVESTING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior order finding that applicant Juan Guzman did not sustain an industrial injury. Guzman claimed he contracted Valley Fever due to his agricultural employment in 2002. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which found defendant's medical expert's opinion more credible. This expert concluded that the incubation period of Valley Fever, and the applicant's symptom onset in 2006, made an industrial exposure in 2002 unlikely. The Board found applicant failed to prove a connection between his condition and his employment, and did not demonstrate a dormant infection originating from his work.

CoccidioidomycosisValley FeverPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryMedical EvidenceIncubation PeriodDormant InfectionPro PerStipulations and IssuesFindings and Order
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guzman v. Bevona

Carlos Guzman, a member and former shop steward of Local 32B-32J, sued the Union's Joint Executive Board for violating his rights under the LMRDA and LMRA, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law. Guzman alleged he was retaliated against for protesting union dues and salaries, specifically by being excluded from a meeting, subjected to surveillance by union-hired private investigators, and having his work hours reduced. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that Guzman's claims had sufficient grounds to proceed, including potential damages for breach of union constitution and for extreme and outrageous conduct causing emotional distress.

Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLabor Management Relations ActFreedom of Speech and AssemblyUnion Dues ProtestShop Steward ExclusionSurveillanceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMotion to DismissUnion Constitution BreachRetaliation
References
19
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. 533094
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Juan Bidot

Juan A. Bidot, a probation officer, filed an occupational disease claim for workers' compensation benefits, alleging he developed posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression due to prolonged exposure to sex offenders. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, disallowing the claim because Bidot failed to demonstrate that his psychological stress was greater than that experienced by similarly situated officers. Bidot appealed the Board's denial of his request for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion as Bidot failed to present newly discovered evidence or a material change in condition.

Occupational DiseasePosttraumatic Stress DisorderPTSDMental HealthWorkers' Compensation ClaimAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionReconsideration ApplicationBoard ReviewProbation Officer
References
9
Case No. 532061
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Juan Abad

Claimant Juan Abad, a general employee of Vanety's Service, LLC and special employee of ACME Furniture, sustained injuries from a fall and filed for workers' compensation benefits. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found Vanety's 100% liable. The Workers' Compensation Board later modified this decision, establishing a general/special employment relationship and equally apportioning liability between Vanety's and ACME. ACME appealed, contesting the apportionment and alleging a denial of due process. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding the apportionment to be within the Board's discretion and the due process claim to be unsubstantiated by the record.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsGeneral/Special EmploymentLiability ApportionmentStaffing AgencyAppellate DivisionDue ProcessBoard Decision ModificationCarrier AppealInjuryLadder Fall
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2014

Guzman v. Jay

Plaintiff Noel Jackson Guzman filed a Section 1983 action against New York City Police Officer Brian Jay, alleging false arrest and excessive force stemming from a 2009 incident. A jury trial resulted in a verdict for Guzman, awarding him significant compensatory and punitive damages for false arrest and excessive force. Officer Jay subsequently moved for a new trial, remittitur, and judgment as a matter of law. The court denied motions for a new trial and remittitur, but granted judgment as a matter of law on the false arrest claim due to qualified immunity. This decision was based on the jury's finding that Officer Jay reasonably, though possibly mistakenly, believed Guzman was fighting at the time of arrest.

False ArrestExcessive Force42 U.S.C. § 1983Qualified ImmunityJury VerdictRemittiturNew Trial MotionJudgment as a Matter of LawPolice MisconductPersonal Injury
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guzman v. Hazemag U.S.A., Inc.

Plaintiff Guzman filed a diversity action alleging product liability and negligence for a hand injury sustained at work in December 1988, involving a machine manufactured by defendants Grasan and Hazemag U.S.A., Inc. Prior to this federal suit, Guzman pursued relief through the Workers' Compensation Board, which initially denied his claim but later determined an employer-employee relationship with M & C Transfer Station and Recycling Inc., against whom he also had a pending state court action. Guzman sought to dismiss the federal action without prejudice to consolidate it with the state court case, citing judicial economy. The district court denied the Rule 41(a)(2) motion, reasoning that the Workers' Compensation Board's finding eliminated the judicial economy justification, as New York Workers' Compensation Law § 29(6) would likely provide a complete defense in the state civil action.

Voluntary DismissalRule 41(a)(2) F.R.C.P.Judicial EconomyDiversity JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation LawProduct LiabilityNegligence ClaimFederal Court ProcedureState Court ActionEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guzman v. Concavage Marine Construction Inc.

Oscar Guzman sued his former employer, Concavage Marine Construction, Inc., Intercoastal Water Transportation, Inc., and owners Nicholas and Joanne Concavage, alleging racial discrimination and hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the New York State Human Rights Law. He also claimed unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the alleged discrimination was based on geographic foreignness, not race, and that Guzman waived his FLSA and New York Labor Law claims for a certain period by signing a Department of Labor Form WH-58. The court denied Defendants' motion in its entirety, finding the discrimination allegations plausible as racial, and that the validity of the WH-58 waiver was questionable due to alleged duress, thus allowing all of Plaintiff's claims to proceed.

Racial discriminationHostile work environmentWage and hourOvertime payFLSANew York Labor LawMotion to dismissEconomic duressSection 1981Human Rights Law
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alfaro v. Vardaris Tech, Inc.

The court did not abuse its discretion in denying partial summary judgment regarding opt-out letters, inferring defendants drafted them to solicit class members' exclusion. However, the appellate court found errors in the trial court's factual findings under CPLR 3212 (g) concerning underreported hours and underpayments to worker Guzman by Vardaris, as issues of fact remain. Consequently, a motion seeking a stay was denied.

Class Action LitigationSummary Judgment DenialOpt-Out LettersSolicitation EthicsWage UnderpaymentPayroll FraudAppellate ReviewFactual Findings DisputeCPLR ProcedureStanding to Appeal
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 369 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