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

F. G. Compagni Construction Co. v. Ross

Petitioners appealed judgments that had annulled certain prevailing wage and supplement redeterminations and notices to withhold payment issued under Labor Law sections 220 and 220-b. They contended that the respondent failed to ascertain prevailing wages and supplements by investigating workers in the defined 'locality,' instead conducting county-wide surveys and using union wage rates without proving majority union membership. The court affirmed the vacatur of redeterminations, finding the respondent's methods deviated from statutory mandates and that 1978 amendments to Labor Law section 220 were not retroactive. However, the court modified the judgments by reversing the annulment of notices to withhold payment, ruling that petitioners should have exhausted administrative remedies before seeking judicial review on that matter.

Prevailing WageWage RedeterminationsLabor Law ComplianceStatutory InterpretationAdministrative ReviewRetroactivity of LawPublic Works ContractsUnion Wage ScalesLocality DefinitionExhaustion of Administrative Remedies
References
7
Case No. ADJ6502736
Regular
Oct 19, 2011

JUAN BARCENAS vs. THE BEST MASTER ENTERPRISES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final notice of intention to dismiss, not an actual decision. The WCAB granted removal to address the frivolous nature of the petition, as it lacked reasonable justification and wasted judicial resources. Consequently, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to impose a $500 sanction on the lien claimant for filing this unjustified petition. The lien claimant has 15 days to object with good cause.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to Dismiss LiensLien ClaimantWCJRemovalSanctionLabor Code section 5813Reasonable JustificationFrivolous Petition
References
3
Case No. ADJ1305490 (MON 0363100)
Regular
Jan 31, 2013

Gloria Jones vs. SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves lien claimant Nogales Psychological Counseling's attempt to reconsider a Notice of Intent to Dismiss their lien for failure to appear at a scheduled trial. The Appeals Board vacated its prior grant of reconsideration and dismissed the lien claimant's petition. The Board also granted removal on its own motion to issue a notice of intention to impose sanctions against the lien claimant and its attorney for filing a frivolous petition without reasonable justification. This conduct violated WCAB Rule 10561(b)(2), resulting in a waste of judicial resources.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intent to Dismiss LienLien ClaimantWCJCompromise and ReleaseIndustrial InjuryReinstatement of LienRemovalSanctions
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. Eagle Sanitation, Inc.

Plaintiffs Kevin Moore and Roger Snyder filed a lawsuit against Eagle Sanitation Inc. and Michael Reali, seeking unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. They moved for conditional certification as an FLSA collective action, production of contact information for potential class members from April 2005 to April 2011, and court authorization to circulate a Notice of Pendency. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson, granted the motion for conditional certification, finding that the plaintiffs met the lenient evidentiary standard required at this stage. Additionally, the court granted the request for defendants to produce contact information for a six-year period to account for state law claims, emphasizing judicial economy. The court also authorized the dissemination of the proposed notice, with minor modifications regarding the inclusion of defense counsel's contact details and clarification on potential costs and discovery obligations for opt-in plaintiffs.

FLSACollective ActionOvertime CompensationNew York Labor LawConditional CertificationNotice of PendencyStatute of LimitationsDiscovery of Class MembersWage and Hour DisputeEmployment Law
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cabrera v. Schafer

Plaintiff Efrain Reyes Cabrera sued his former employers, Thomas Schafer and Dream Team Tavern Corp., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime and improper wage notice. The Defendants denied these claims. The Court denied the Defendants' motions in limine, which sought judicial notice of Workers’ Compensation Board findings and admission of allegedly forged immigration documents to impeach the Plaintiff’s credibility. The Court found the request for judicial notice improper as it sought to establish the truth of disputed facts from another case, and the immigration documents, while potentially relevant to credibility, were highly prejudicial and could have a chilling effect on other employees.

FLSANYLLWage and HourOvertimeMotions in LimineJudicial NoticeCredibilityImmigration StatusFederal Rules of EvidenceRule 201
References
15
Case No. 2015-1243 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Acupuncture Healthcare Plaza I, P.C. v. Metlife Auto & Home

The case involves Acupuncture Healthcare Plaza I, P.C., as assignee of Boris Goldbaum, suing Metlife Auto & Home for first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant had paid a reduced sum, arguing the remaining amount exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule and that one claim was subject to a policy deductible. During a nonjury trial, the parties stipulated to the plaintiff's prima facie case and timely denials. The defendant sought judicial notice of the workers' compensation fee schedule but failed to provide a witness to testify on its proper utilization or evidence for the deductible reduction. The Civil Court granted judgment to the plaintiff, which was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Term, Second Department. The Appellate Term noted that while judicial notice of the fee schedule is permissible, the party seeking it must provide sufficient information and notice to the adverse party, and the fee schedule alone doesn't prove proper utilization of codes or reduction due to a deductible without supporting evidence.

No-fault insuranceMedical billing disputeAppellate reviewJudicial noticeBurden of proofFee schedule applicationPolicy deductibleAssigned claimsCivil procedureEvidence admissibility
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angulo v. City of New York

In a personal injury action, the defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The original order denied the City's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve a notice of claim and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to deem his notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff, injured in May 2005, served his notice of claim in August 2005, which the City rejected as untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granting the City's motion to dismiss the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court held that timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to suing the City and that the plaintiff failed to make a timely application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not rely on the workers' compensation carrier's notice of claim.

Personal InjuryNotice of ClaimTimelinessCondition PrecedentCPLR 3211(a)(7)General Municipal Law § 50-eDismissal of ComplaintLate Notice of ClaimNunc Pro TuncWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
7
Case No. ADJ309771 (AHM 0081549)
Regular
Sep 11, 2012

MARK THOMPSON vs. GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involves a dispute over the reasonableness of a medical provider's lien for treatment rendered to an injured worker. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the trial judge's decision, but also issued notices of intention to impose sanctions against both the defendant school district and the lien claimant. Both parties are accused of engaging in bad-faith actions and tactics that caused unnecessary delay, including extensive and largely meritless pleadings and prolonged discovery. The Board found that both parties significantly over-complicated a simple lien issue, wasting judicial and administrative resources.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings & OrderLien ClaimantIndependent Bill ReviewerReasonable Value of ServicesBurden of ProofSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Bad Faith Actions
References
8
Case No. ADJ10731404
Regular
Oct 09, 2018

PRESTON LEE BROWN SCOTT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, OPSEC; THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is issuing a notice of intention to declare applicant Preston Lee Brown Scott a vexatious litigant. This action is prompted by Mr. Scott's repeated filing of unmeritorious and repetitive claims and petitions, despite being informed of procedural rules and settlement agreements. If declared a vexatious litigant, Mr. Scott will be subject to a pre-filing order requiring him to obtain permission before filing any new documents or applications with the WCAB. This measure aims to prevent further abuse of the judicial process and conserve WCAB resources.

Vexatious litigantAppeals BoardPre-filing orderPropria personaReconsiderationLabor CodeCarve-out agreementADRCompromise and ReleaseSection 132a
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Isereau v. Brushton-Moira School District

This case concerns consolidated appeals from Supreme Court orders granting petitioners Darrell Isereau and Jason K. Houghton leave to file late notices of claim against Brushton-Moira School District. The petitioners, employees of Bette & Cring, LLC, were injured in a construction accident in August 2002, sustaining falls of approximately 15 feet. They sought to file late notices of claim based on alleged incapacitation and the District's actual knowledge of the accident. The respondent District argued prejudice due to late notice and a subsequent insurance disclaimer. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's orders, finding no abuse of discretion as the District had actual notice of the essential facts, and the insurance disclaimer was attributed to the District Superintendent's failure, not the petitioners' delay.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawLabor Law ViolationsPersonal InjurySchool District LiabilityConstruction AccidentFall AccidentActual KnowledgePrejudiceInsurance Disclaimer
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,084 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