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

Pardo v. Bialystoker Center & Bikur Cholim, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order, dated September 12, 2002, and the second, dated February 27, 2003, had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and precluded him from asserting Labor Law claims at trial concerning the alleged failure of defendants to secure a scaffold with "tie-ins." The appellate court modified the lower court's orders, vacating the provisions that barred the plaintiff from offering evidence regarding the defendants' alleged failure to use tie-ins. The court affirmed the orders in all other respects. It emphasized that under Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that injuries were partially attributable to the defendant's failure to implement statutorily mandated safety measures to protect against elevation-related risks. The court also clarified that contributory negligence is irrelevant in such cases. The plaintiff's belated request to plead a violation of Industrial Code § 23-5.8 (g) was denied due to an unequivocal waiver of his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentElevation HazardsProximate CauseContributory NegligenceTie-insWorkplace AccidentStatutory Safety MeasuresAppellate Decision
References
7
Case No. ADJ994369
Regular
Jan 19, 2014

JOSE JUAREZ vs. WATKINS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is reconsidering a decision that awarded the applicant medical mileage and a penalty for unreasonable delay in compensation payments but denied attorney's fees. The WCAB believes attorney's fees are warranted under Labor Code section 5814.5 for enforcing the payment of awarded compensation. The case is being returned to the trial level for the judge to determine and award these attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardMedical Mileage Expense ReimbursementAttorney's FeesLabor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5813Labor Code Section 5814.5Cumulative Industrial InjuryPulmonary System Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ4403161
Regular
Apr 04, 2013

LORENA IBARRA vs. BOONE INTERNATIONAL, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a joint and several award against Boone International and its carrier. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the petition for reconsideration was not properly verified and lacked merit. The WCJ concluded that defendant Select Personnel and its carrier were properly included in the joint and several award under Labor Code § 5500.5(c), as they were joined as parties before the applicant's election against Boone International. The Board affirmed that Select's rights to contribution proceedings under Labor Code § 5500.5(e) remain available.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardContinuous TraumaJoint and Several AwardLabor Code § 5500.5Petition for ReconsiderationStipulation with Request for AwardDue ProcessApportionment of LiabilityRight of ContributionEmployer Joinder
References
0
Case No. ADJ6671169
Regular
Oct 16, 2013

Christian Fauria vs. Carolina Panthers, Great Divide Insurance Co., Berkley Specialty Underwriting Managers, LLC, Washington Redskins, ESIS Insurance, New England Patriots, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Travelers Indemnity Co., Golf Insurance Co., Seattle Seahawks

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior award finding California jurisdiction over Christian Fauria's claim due to lack of "regular employment" in California, as defined by Labor Code Section 3600.5(a). The case was remanded to the trial level to determine if jurisdiction exists based on injuries sustained within California or if the contract of hire was made in California, as per Labor Code Section 5305. The WCAB also instructed the judge to address all issues, including apportionment and liability periods under Labor Code Section 5500.5. The decision highlights the need for substantial evidence to establish jurisdiction and injury contribution within the state.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardChristian FauriaProfessional AthleteIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentLabor Code Section 3600.5(a)Statute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5500.5Jurisdiction
References
29
Case No. ADJ8059450
Regular
Aug 25, 2017

REYNA I. SANCHEZ vs. UNILEVER, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ALBERTO CULVER COMPANY, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision to allow further proceedings. The employer's stipulation of employment for the entire cumulative trauma period was invalid as they only represented one insurer. Crucially, the date of injury must be determined under Labor Code § 5412 to establish liability under § 5500.5 for the correct employer(s). The applicant's election against Unilever was permissible under § 5500.5(c), and any future awards for jointly liable employers must be joint and several.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardUnileverBroadspireAlberto CulverACE American InsuranceSecond Amended Findings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5412Date of InjuryCumulative Trauma
References
0
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25024
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

Matter of W.S. v. G.S.

The petitioner (W.S.) filed a family offense petition against the respondent (G.S.), his sister, alleging harassment in the second degree. W.S. claimed G.S. threatened 'further consequences' and made false statements in a Mental Hygiene Law article 9 petition, leading to W.S.'s arrest. G.S. argued her statements were privileged and made due to genuine fear and concerns about W.S.'s mental health and hoarding. The court held that communications made in support of a Mental Hygiene Law petition are subject to a qualified privilege and serve a 'legitimate purpose' unless made with knowing/reckless disregard of falsity and solely to alarm/annoy. The court found W.S. failed to prove G.S.'s statements met this higher standard or that her other alleged actions constituted harassment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Family OffenseHarassment Second DegreeMental Hygiene Law Article 9Qualified PrivilegeLegitimate Purpose DefenseIntent to HarassBurden of ProofCredibility of WitnessesStatements to PoliceMalice Standard
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

U. S. Pillow Corp. v. McLeod

The U. S. Pillow Corporation (plaintiff) initiated legal action to prevent the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from conducting a representation election involving its employees, as petitioned by Local 140. Although the election proceeded, the ballots were impounded. The court considered three motions: Local 140's request for intervention, U. S. Pillow's plea for an injunction to continue ballot impoundment, and the Regional Director's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. The court granted Local 140's intervention. The core of U. S. Pillow's argument centered on alleged violations of its constitutional rights and administrative due process by the NLRB's decision to permit a single-employer unit election despite existing multi-employer agreements. The court, however, deemed the plaintiff's constitutional claims to be "transparently frivolous" and found no merit in any of its contentions. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, and the plaintiff's request for an injunction pendente lite was denied.

Labor RelationsNLRBRepresentation ElectionJudicial ReviewInjunctionCollective BargainingMulti-employer UnitConstitutional RightsDue ProcessFirst Amendment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2012

Penaranda v. 4933 Realty, LLC

Plaintiff, an employee of K&S Construction, sustained injuries after being thrown from a Bobcat within a warehouse owned by the defendant landlord. The incident occurred while the plaintiff was removing plywood, an activity he claimed was necessary for a concrete curb construction project. The central legal issue was whether the plaintiff's plywood removal qualified as construction work under the Labor Law, entitling him to its protections. The court found a question of fact regarding whether the work was "necessary and incidental" to the construction. Consequently, the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was reinstated, and the third-party complaint for contractual indemnity against K&S Construction was also reinstated, while other aspects of the lower court's decision were affirmed.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintIndemnityBobcat AccidentGravity-Related EventCounterweightAppellate ReviewQuestion of Fact
References
6
Case No. AHM 108812 AHM 108813 AHM 108814
Regular
Nov 06, 2007

OLIVIA ZAVALA vs. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT

This case involves an award of attorney's fees under Labor Code § 5801 following a successful defense against the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for the Board to determine reasonable attorney's fees for the applicant's counsel's services. The applicant's attorney requested $5,171.89, but both parties ultimately stipulated to a total of $5,000.00 for attorney's fees and appellate costs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAttorney's FeeLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealStipulationAppellate CostsMetropolitan Water DistrictReasonable Attorney's Fees
References
1
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01069 [158 AD3d 703]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2018

Matter of Bella S. (Sarah S.)

The case "Matter of Bella S. (Sarah S.)" involves an appeal from a Family Court order that found Sarah S. (mother) neglected her child, Bella S. The Administration for Children's Services had petitioned, alleging the mother's untreated bipolar disorder and other mental illnesses put the child at risk. The Family Court agreed, but the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this finding. The Appellate Division concluded that the petitioner failed to prove inadequate treatment or imminent harm, noting the mother's consistent efforts in seeking housing, prenatal care, methadone treatment, and psychiatric medication. Consequently, the petition against the mother was denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

Child NeglectParental RightsMental IllnessBipolar DisorderAdequate TreatmentAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofImminent DangerFamily Court ActKings County
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 11,948 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