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. ADJ10456401
Regular
Oct 25, 2016

JUAN RIVAS vs. NORTH AMERICAN TRAILER, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Juan Rivas related to a workers' compensation award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the WCJ's report. Adopting the WCJ's reasoning, the Board denied Rivas's petition for reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedWCJ ReportAdoptedIncorporatedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAward (Assumed)Van Nuys District OfficeADJ10456401North American Trailer
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morato-Rodriguez v. Riva Construction Group, Inc.

The motion court determined that plaintiffs' claims against defendant Riva were barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. This decision was based on Riva demonstrating that it and WTS Contracting Corp. were alter egos, sharing key personnel, an office address, and the same liability and Workers’ Compensation insurance policies. Despite the plaintiff being paid by WTS and WTS being identified as the employer in accident reports and the Workers' Compensation award notice, this was consistent with WTS functioning solely as a payroll entity for Riva employees. Furthermore, the plaintiff testified that his only supervisor was a Riva employee. Consequently, the court found the need for further discovery from Riva to be unavailing. The decision was affirmed by the concurring justices.

Alter EgoWorkers' Compensation LawEmployer LiabilityCorporate IdentityPayroll ServicesSupervisory ControlMotion CourtSummary JudgmentInsurance PoliciesLegal Bar
References
2
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. 2023 NY Slip Op 06267 [222 AD3d 676]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2023

Rivas v. Purvis Holdings, LLC

Baltazar Rivas, a construction worker, and his wife sued Purvis Holdings, LLC, the owner and general contractor of a building, for personal injuries sustained from a ladder fall at a construction site in February 2015. Rivas, employed by third-party defendant All Island Masonry & Concrete, Inc., fell 8 to 10 feet from a wooden ladder between the 16th and 17th floors. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding a triable issue of fact regarding Labor Law § 240 (1) and no violation of Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (b) (4) (ii) for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Construction AccidentLadder FallLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseIndustrial Code ViolationSafety DevicesNondelegable Duty
References
14
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04415
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2023

Rivas v. Seward Park Hous. Corp.

William Rivas, a laborer, was injured when a trench wall collapsed while he was working at a depth of approximately 12 feet. He sued Seward Park Housing Corporation, Fred Smith Plumbing and Heating Company, and Onsite Construction Enterprises, asserting a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied Rivas's motion for partial summary judgment on this claim and granted the defendants' cross-motion, dismissing the claim, reasoning that a trench cave-in was not an elevation-related hazard. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, finding that the trench cave-in presented an elevation-related hazard within the contemplation of Labor Law § 240 (1), especially in light of the Court of Appeals decisions in Runner and Wilinski. The court concluded that the defendants failed to provide adequate protection against a gravity-related accident and are liable under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240 (1)trench collapseelevation-related hazardsummary judgmentexcavation accidentconstruction safetygravity-related accidentshoringappellate reviewFirst Department
References
15
Case No. 2015-1796 Q CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2017

People v. Rivas (Mayra)

This case concerns an appeal by Mayra Rivas from her convictions for stalking in the fourth degree and harassment in the first degree. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reviewed the facial sufficiency of the superseding accusatory instrument and the weight of the trial evidence. The court reversed and dismissed the conviction for stalking under Penal Law § 120.45 (3), finding the accusatory instrument facially insufficient as it lacked objective facts to establish a reasonable fear of employment loss. However, the convictions for stalking under Penal Law § 120.45 (1) and harassment in the first degree were affirmed, as the court determined that the extensive allegations supported a finding of a course of conduct intended to cause reasonable fear for personal safety, beyond mere protected speech.

StalkingHarassmentCriminal LawAppellate ReviewFacial InsufficiencySufficiency of EvidencePenal LawCriminal Procedure LawFirst AmendmentFree Speech
References
16
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. 2021 NY Slip Op 05600 [198 AD3d 826]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2021

Rivas-Pichardo v. 292 Fifth Ave. Holdings, LLC

Cesar A. Rivas-Pichardo, a laborer, was injured during a demolition project when bricks ricocheted from a debris chute. He commenced an action against the property owner, 292 Fifth Avenue Holdings, LLC, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241-a, and 241 (6). The owner, in turn, filed a third-party action against the plaintiff's employer, Pinnacle Demolition & Environmental Services Corp. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and granted parts of the defendant's and third-party defendant's motions to dismiss certain claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, finding that Labor Law § 240 (1) was implicated by the elevation-related risk, and accordingly granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability for that claim while denying Pinnacle's motions to dismiss claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and certain provisions of 241 (6).

Personal InjuryDemolition ProjectLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Elevation-Related RiskDebris Chute AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyIndustrial Code Violations
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 294 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