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. 2023 NY Slip Op 02305 [216 AD3d 630]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2023

Lochan v. H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc.

Ashram Lochan sued H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc., 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, and Hassan Haghanegi for personal injuries sustained from falling off an unsecured ladder while painting, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company and, in effect, searched the record to award summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, denying the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the award of summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, finding it improperly searched the record. However, it affirmed the grant of summary judgment against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, concluding the plaintiff established a prima facie case and defendants failed to raise a triable issue. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, ruling they failed to establish the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, a recalcitrant worker, or a volunteer.

Ladder AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240(1)Sole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseUnsecured LadderConstruction Site SafetyWorker Fall
References
18
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03294 [205 AD3d 1243]
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

Matter of Truax & Hovey, Ltd. (Commissioner of Labor)

This case involves an appeal by Truax & Hovey, Ltd. (T&H) from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. T&H, an interior construction company, was found liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions for drywall installers and finishers it considered independent contractors. The Department of Labor's determinations, upheld by Administrative Law Judges and the Board, applied Labor Law § 861-c, part of the Construction Industry Fair Play Act, which presumes an employment relationship unless specific criteria for an independent contractor are met. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that T&H failed to rebut this presumption because it did not establish that the drywallers owned the capital goods (drywall), a requirement under the separate business entity test.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipConstruction Industry Fair Play ActLabor LawDrywall InstallersStatutory PresumptionABC TestSeparate Business EntityAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ4140574 (VNO 0417628) ADJ3588068 (VNO 0472981)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

KEVIN THOMPSON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant Kevin Thompson an additional attorney's fee of $1,500 under Labor Code section 5801. This fee is for services rendered by his attorney in successfully defending against the defendant's petition for writ of review to the Court of Appeal. The Board disallowed the requested clerical fees as section 5801 applies only to attorney services. Additionally, the request for costs under Labor Code section 5811 was denied due to the lack of required itemization and supporting documentation.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's feePetition for Writ of ReviewAppeals BoardSupplemental awardReasonable attorney's feeAppellate levelPenaltyClerical servicesLabor Code § 5811
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ozzimo v. H.E.S., Inc.

Ronald Ozzimo, a pipe layer, was injured at the Mill Seat Landfill, owned by Monroe County, while working for Consolidated Constructors and Builders, Inc., under an agreement with general contractor H.E.S., Inc. He fell into an open trench, injuring his back. Ozzimo sued H.E.S. and the County for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. The Supreme Court initially erred in deeming Ozzimo a special employee of H.E.S. and in dismissing certain Labor Law claims. The appellate court modified the order, reinstating most claims against H.E.S. (except for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim) and reinstating specific Labor Law § 241 (6) claims against both defendants, while upholding the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against all and the Labor Law § 200 claim against the County.

Special Employee StatusLabor LawConstruction Site SafetyTrench AccidentNegligenceGeneral Contractor LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilitySummary JudgmentSpecific Safety StandardsAppellate Decision
References
13
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 08022
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2014

Matter of Sean P.H. (Rosemarie H.)

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order of the Family Court, Richmond County, which found that the mother, Rosemarie H., permanently neglected her child, Sean P.H., terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody to Edwin Gould Services for Children and Families and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services. The mother's contentions regarding deprivation of her right to be present and ineffective assistance of counsel were rejected, as her due process rights were met and she received meaningful representation. The court found clear and convincing evidence of permanent neglect due to her failure to plan for the child's return and comply with the service plan, and determined that termination was in the child's best interests.

Parental RightsChild NeglectFamily LawAppealsDue Process RightsLegal RepresentationFoster Care SystemGuardianshipAdoptionService Plan
References
23
Case No. ADJ4543302 (LBO 0384577) ADJ4573415 (LBO 0384579)
Regular
Oct 31, 2008

SANDRA AREBALO vs. MELISSA & ARTUR SPOKOJNY, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES c/o ALL STATE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, reversing a prior ruling. The Board found that the applicant's specific injury claim was barred by Labor Code section 3352(h) because she did not meet the minimum hours or earnings threshold for an employee. Additionally, the Board determined that the applicant's cumulative trauma claim was barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) as it was filed after notice of termination. Consequently, the applicant will take nothing from her claims.

Labor Code Section 3352(h)Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)post-termination defensespecific injurycumulative traumahousekeeperbabysitterdate of injurydefinition of employeePetition for Reconsideration
References
2
Case No. ADJ6521131
Regular
Aug 11, 2010

MARTIN REYES vs. GERALD & BOBBY HUNT (Homeowners), CAPITOL INSURANCE

This case involves an applicant injured while tree trimming for homeowners. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, overturning the original decision. The Board found that because the applicant was an unlicensed contractor performing work requiring a license, he is considered an employee as a matter of law under Labor Code section 2750.5. However, the applicant is still excluded from workers' compensation coverage under Labor Code section 3352(h). Therefore, despite being an employee, the applicant takes nothing by way of his claim.

Labor Code section 2750.5Labor Code section 3352(h)unlicensed contractoremployee presumptionstatutory employerresidential dwellingtree trimmingBusiness and Professions Code section 7026.1Cedillo v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.independent contractor
References
7
Case No. ADJ3968322
Regular
Apr 29, 2011

GABRIEL CORTEZ vs. THOMAS WYNN & MIA WYNN, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision finding applicant Gabriel Cortez was an employee of defendants Thomas and Mia Wynn. The Board rescinded the decision due to an incomplete record, specifically the absence of the WCJ's actual decision. The matter is remanded for further proceedings and a new decision, allowing parties to address a newly raised Labor Code section 3715(b) issue. The defendants' arguments regarding employment status under Labor Code sections 2750.5, 3351(d), and 3352(h) remain to be fully adjudicated.

Labor Code section 2750.5Labor Code section 3351(d)Labor Code section 3352(h)unlicensed drywall installeremployment relationshipPetition for ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationSupplemental Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 3715(d)WCJ decision
References
3
Case No. ADJ9099771
Regular
Apr 18, 2014

Gary Reynolds vs. Michael Thomas Connolly, Beverly Connolly

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision grants reconsideration to remove Beverly Connolly as a named employer, as she was never properly joined in the proceedings. The Board affirms the original finding that Gary Reynolds was an employee of Michael Thomas Connolly, based on Labor Code § 2750.5's conclusive presumption for work exceeding $500 when the worker lacks a valid contractor's license. The employer's arguments regarding estoppel, due process, and the UEBTF's joinder were rejected. The Board found that Reynolds was not an excluded employee under Labor Code § 3352(h) as the work was for Connolly's rental business, not his personal residence.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardEmployee StatusBeverly ConnollyUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundUEBTFContractor's LicenseEstoppelLabor Code Section 2750.5
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Labor Relations Board v. Goodman

This case involves an appeal concerning the interaction between the National Labor Relations Act and the Bankruptcy Code. Appellants, the NLRB and the Union, challenged a Bankruptcy Court order that shielded James M. Goodman and Goodman Automatic Sprinkler Corporation (GASC) from labor law liabilities based on Goodman's Chapter 7 discharge. The District Court affirmed that Goodman's personal discharge protects him from pre-petition monetary and non-monetary obligations arising from a rejected collective bargaining agreement. However, the court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's finding that GASC was also shielded, concluding that Goodman's discharge does not protect GASC from alleged obligations. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings, including a determination of the alter-ego status of Goodman and GASC under applicable labor law standards.

BankruptcyChapter 7National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementDischargeable DebtsPrimary JurisdictionLabor LawEmployer Obligations
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 8,274 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