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. ADJ2686814 (BAK 0149828) ADJ177767 (BAK 0149829) ADJ328403 (BAK 0149996)
Regular
Aug 22, 2014

SARA CAZARES vs. FIRST TRANSIT, INC., administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Removal due to untimeliness. The petition was filed outside the 20-day window for challenging a June 26, 2014 decision, as it was due by July 16, 2014. Additionally, the petition lacked the required verification. Even if timely, the Board would have denied it on the merits as the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingVerificationSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJ ReportWCAB RulesWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPersonal ServiceTimeliness
References
1
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 09213 [156 AD3d 1268]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2017

Claim of Bagnato v. General Electric

The claimant, Ricci Bagnato, alleged a right shoulder injury on June 26, 2014, while working for General Electric. He filed a workers' compensation claim in August 2014, after being terminated for reasons unrelated to the injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding claimant's testimony not credible due to delayed reporting, lack of initial medical treatment, and suspicious timing of the claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board is the sole arbiter of witness credibility and its finding of no work-related accident was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryCredibility AssessmentWork-Related AccidentDelayed ReportingEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceClaim DenialFraudulent Documentation
References
7
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01881 [215 AD3d 722]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2023

Andrade v. Bergen Beach 26, LLC

The plaintiff, Freddy Andrade, appealed an order denying his motion for summary judgment on liability against Bergen Beach 26, LLC, for a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Andrade was allegedly injured after falling from a ladder at a construction site where his employer was a subcontractor. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the plaintiff's motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as triable issues of fact existed regarding whether Labor Law § 240 (1) was violated and if such a violation was the proximate cause of his injuries.

Personal InjuryLadder FallConstruction SiteLabor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityAppellate ReviewPrima FacieTriable Issues of FactSubcontractor
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04739 [241 AD3d 844]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2025

Rivera v. 26 W. 56, LLC

Nancy Rivera, an employee of Alba Services, Inc., was injured during a building renovation project when an HVAC duct fell on her while she was removing demolition debris. She commenced an action against the property owner, 26 W. 56, LLC, and the general contractor, Abeco Construction, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The defendants cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss this cause of action. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied their cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding whether the HVAC duct required securing and fell due to an inadequate safety device, and also failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of her injuries.

Falling ObjectDemolition AccidentConstruction Site SafetySummary JudgmentTriable Issues of FactWorker SafetyHVAC DuctProximate CauseAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
12
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00744 [191 AD3d 1363]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2021

Lemiszko v. Mosovich 2014 Family Trust

Plaintiff Troy C. Lemiszko commenced an action seeking damages for injuries sustained after falling from a ladder on premises owned by Mosovich 2014 Family Trust. Defendant AAA Contracting, LLC appealed an order denying its pre-answer motion to dismiss Labor Law claims and the Trust's cross-claim for contractual indemnification. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order, rejecting AAA Contracting, LLC's collateral estoppel argument, finding that a prior workers' compensation determination did not preclude plaintiff's Labor Law recovery. The court also upheld the denial of dismissal for the contractual indemnification cross-claim due to insufficient documentary evidence.

Collateral EstoppelLabor Law ClaimsContractual IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation BoardLadder FallPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissGeneral Contractor LiabilityUninsured Employer
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2005

Urbina v. 26 Court Street Associates, LLC

Plaintiff Carlos Urbina, an electrician, sustained severe injuries after falling from a Baker scaffold at a construction site, leading to a fractured patella and multiple surgeries. He and his wife, Lucy Nunez, sued the premises owner, 26 Court Street Associates, LLC, the lessee/general contractor, Town Sports International, Inc. (TSI), and the drywall subcontractor, R & J Construction Corp. (R & J), alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law sections. The Supreme Court's judgment, awarding substantial damages, was appealed, specifically regarding awards for pain and suffering. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, conditionally reducing the awards for past and future pain and suffering, while affirming the grant of contractual indemnity to TSI and Court Street against R & J, based on R & J's contractual obligation to provide scaffolding.

Construction site injuryScaffolding accidentPersonal injury damagesContractual indemnificationLabor Law § 240(1)Damages modificationPain and suffering awardLost wages awardPatella fractureSubcontractor negligence
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hamilton v. General Motors Hourly-Rate Employee's Pension Plan

Plaintiff Gary Hamilton, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on June 26, 2014, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), alleging improper denial of pension benefits, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable estoppel. He sought additional credited service for his tenure at non-foundry plants, contending that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) should modify his pension calculation as if his entire service had been at a designated foundry location. The defendants, General Motors Corporation Hourly-Rate Employee’s Pension Plan and General Motors, LLC, argued that the Plan's terms unambiguously require actual employment in designated foundry classifications for enhanced benefits and that the MOU's purpose was solely to facilitate employee transfers, not to alter pension benefits. The Court, applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review, found the defendants' interpretation of both the Plan and the MOU to be reasonable. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's claims in their entirety.

ERISAPension BenefitsFiduciary DutyEquitable EstoppelSummary JudgmentPlan AdministratorCredited ServiceFoundry JobsMemorandum of UnderstandingArbitrary and Capricious Standard
References
30
Case No. ADJ8987075
Regular
Nov 21, 2014

MAGALI PENA vs. DEL MAR SEAFOODS, STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the applicant's temporary disability period. The Board amended the prior finding, establishing the temporary disability for the applicant's knee injury from June 19, 2013, through April 17, 2014. This amendment adjusted the end date of temporary disability from April 27, 2014, to April 17, 2014. The Board otherwise affirmed the original Amended Findings and Award.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary DisabilityIndustrial InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJAmended Findings and AwardPermanent and StationaryMedical OpinionReport and Recommendation
References
0
Case No. ADJ7644729
Regular
May 20, 2014

COREY EVANS vs. FIRMANICH, TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Corey Evans' petition for reconsideration as untimely. Although the Findings and Orders were issued on December 20, 2013, Evans stated he had actual notice on February 14, 2014. This established a deadline of March 6, 2014, for filing the petition. Since Evans filed his petition on March 26, 2014, it was beyond the jurisdictional deadline. Therefore, the WCAB lacked the power to grant the petition, and it was dismissed accordingly.

Petition for Reconsiderationuntimely filingLabor Code section 5903jurisdictional time limitactual noticeWCJ Report and Recommendationcredibility findingdismissalAppeals Boardapplicant's attorney
References
8
Case No. ADJ8838881
Regular
Jul 11, 2014

ALEXANDER ENGLISH vs. DALLAS MAVERICKS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for removal filed by the defendants, Dallas Mavericks and Zenith Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was filed on June 18, 2014, which was untimely. The original decision was issued on April 8, 2014, and the petitioner failed to file within the required 20-day period for personal service. The Board clarified that the 20-day deadline, not 25 days, applied, making the petition due by April 28, 2014.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingPersonal Service20-day DeadlineWCJ ReportStrom v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.ADJ8838881Oakland District OfficeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDALLAS MAVERICKS
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,369 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