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. ADJ7231490, ADJ7231492
Regular
Jan 04, 2011

JUAN PEREZ vs. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.; ZURICH LOS ANGELES

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Juan Perez's Petition for Removal. The WCAB found that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable injury. Perez failed to demonstrate such harm or that reconsideration was unavailable. Therefore, the Board adopted the WCJ's report and denied the petition.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable InjuryWCJ ReportExtraordinary RemedyReconsideration UnavailableDeniedADJ7231490ADJ7231492
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hunter v. Perez Interboro Asphalt Co.

Plaintiff Jacqueline Hunter was injured when a construction barricade timber rolled onto her foot. She sued Goodkind & O’Dea (G&O), the engineering inspection contractor, and Perez Interboro Asphalt Company (Perez), the prime contractor, alleging negligence. The Supreme Court denied G&O's motion for summary judgment but granted Perez's motion. On appeal, the court modified the order, denying Perez's summary judgment motion and reinstating the complaint against Perez. The denial of G&O's motion for summary judgment was affirmed.

construction accidentpersonal injurysummary judgmentappellate reviewnegligencecontractual dutybarricade safetyengineering contractorprime contractorNew York County Supreme Court
References
9
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07864
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2016

Perez v. Gateway Realty LLC

Plaintiff Rafael Perez, a superintendent, suffered neck and back injuries while moving a heavy elevator motor at a building owned by Gateway Realty LLC. The injury occurred when a dolly wheel became stuck in a sidewalk crack, requiring Perez to lift the dolly. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Gateway Realty LLC, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the decision, concluding that the action was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law due to an established employee/employer relationship between Perez and Gateway Realty LLC, and Perez's receipt of workers' compensation benefits.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionEmployer-Employee RelationshipProperty Owner LiabilityPersonal InjurySidewalk DefectLabor LawAffirmed DecisionSuperintendent
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00629 [168 AD3d 1112]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2019

Ramos-Perez v. Evelyn USA, LLC

Felipe Ramos-Perez was injured while unloading flooring materials from a truck at a construction site. A hydraulic lift was used to lower heavy pallets, one of which fell and struck the plaintiff. Ramos-Perez commenced an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) against the property owners, Robert Soha Retail, LLC, and Soha Retail Equities, LLC (the Soha defendants). The Supreme Court initially granted the Soha defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Ramos-Perez's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the failure to provide an appropriate safety device, which was the proximate cause of the injury. Therefore, the Appellate Division denied the Soha defendants' motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability.

construction accidentpersonal injuryLabor Lawsummary judgmentliabilityhydraulic liftfalling objectproximate causesafety deviceAppellate Division
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Brookdale University Hospital & Medical Center

Eulalia Perez was admitted to Brookdale University Hospital on November 16, 2010, and treated for various medical conditions before being discharged on December 7. She died two days later. Her family, Ivan and Irma Perez, sued Brookdale and other defendants, alleging a violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and state-law claims of wrongful death and negligence. The court granted Brookdale's motion for summary judgment on the EMTALA claim, determining that the hospital fulfilled its EMTALA duties once Mrs. Perez was stabilized, and any subsequent issues were outside the statute's scope. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, leading to the dismissal of all claims against all parties.

EMTALAEmergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor ActMedical MalpracticeNegligenceWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentSupplemental JurisdictionPatient DumpingHospital DischargeFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. 11 Civ. 8655(RWS)
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Plaintiff Ada Perez, a police officer for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), filed an amended complaint against the MTA and two officers, D’Agostino and Olshanetskiy, alleging violations of her Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights related to compulsory urine tests during her employment. Perez, on restricted duty after an injury and not carrying a firearm, argued she was not in a safety-sensitive position and therefore not subject to random drug testing per an MTA agreement. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion, dismissing municipal claims against the MTA due to lack of a valid § 1983 claim but allowing the unreasonable search and seizure claims to proceed based on new factual allegations regarding the MTA-Police Benevolent Association Memorandum of Agreement. The court dismissed the due process claims, finding no deprivation of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest.

Fourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentUnreasonable Search and SeizureDue ProcessMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Municipal LiabilityMonell ClaimDrug Testing
References
30
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. 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. 2020 NY Slip Op 08012
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2020

Perez v. Masonry Servs., Inc.

This case, Perez v Masonry Services, Inc., concerns a lawsuit brought by Adrian Perez and others against Masonry Services, Inc. (MSI), Manuel J. Herrera, James Herrera, and Lettire Construction Corp. The plaintiffs alleged a breach of contract to pay prevailing wages, as mandated by the Davis-Bacon Act, for work on a federally financed construction project. The Supreme Court, New York County, found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them joint and several damages. The court also permitted Lettire Construction Corp. to assert alter ego and veil piercing claims against MSI, Manuel, and James. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that the record supported the finding that Manuel and James abused the corporate form to avoid wage payments and that joint and several liability was properly imposed.

Prevailing WageDavis-Bacon ActBreach of ContractAlter EgoVeil PiercingJoint and Several LiabilityConstruction ProjectCorporate Form AbusePayroll RecordsDamages Award
References
10
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03894
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2024

Olivera-Perez v. B.A.M. Bldrs., Inc.

Macario Olivera-Perez sustained personal injuries during construction work. The Workers' Compensation Board determined Builders Joseph and Sons, LLC, was his employer and awarded benefits. Olivera-Perez then filed a personal injury action against Builders Joseph and Sons, LLC, and others. Builders Joseph and Sons, LLC, cross-moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the Workers' Compensation Law provides an exclusive remedy. The Supreme Court denied this, but the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed, granting the dismissal of the complaint against Builders Joseph and Sons, LLC, based on the Workers' Compensation Board's prior finding and the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The court also converted cross-claims against Builders Joseph and Sons, LLC, into third-party causes of action.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityEmployer-Employee RelationshipMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentSupreme Court Order ModifiedCross-Claims ConversionJudicial DiscretionDocumentary Evidence
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 439 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