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. ADJ4655433 (STK 0183897) ADJ4135432 (STK 0183898)
Regular
Sep 08, 2010

CARMELA GARCIA vs. E & J GALLO WINERY, P.S.I.

This case concerns a request for supplemental attorney's fees following an unsuccessful petition for writ of review by defendant E & J Gallo Winery. The Court of Appeal previously granted the applicant's request for fees under Labor Code § 5801 and remanded the matter. The applicant's attorney requested $3,150.00 for services related to answering the petition, which the defendant did not dispute in amount, only in principle. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the requested amount reasonable and issued a supplemental award of $3,150.00 in attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5801attorney's feessupplemental awardpetition for writ of reviewremittiturreasonable basisapplicantdefendantE & J Gallo Winery
References
1
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. ADJ7497019
Regular
Mar 14, 2019

ROBERT WILLIAM BATES vs. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior award finding the applicant sustained two cumulative heart injuries as a deputy sheriff. The defendant sought to apportion permanent disability between these injuries, citing Labor Code section 4664(a) and the *Benson* case. However, the Board ruled that Labor Code section 4663(e) prohibits apportionment to causation for injuries presumed industrial under Labor Code section 3212, overriding general apportionment rules. Therefore, the applicant's full permanent disability rating was awarded without apportionment.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryHeart Trouble PresumptionLabor Code Section 3212ApportionmentLabor Code Section 4663(e)Benson v. WCABDeputy SheriffPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
15
Case No. ADJ6743994
Regular
Jan 24, 2011

STANLEY HOLDER vs. COUNTY OF NEVADA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration and denied the defendant's. The WCAB found the applicant's heart condition to be industrially caused based on the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.5, overriding the AME's fluctuating opinion. Permanent disability was increased from 4% to 20% and apportionment was disallowed under Labor Code section 4663(e). Finally, the defendant was denied a 15% reduction in permanent disability payments under Labor Code section 4658 because they failed to strictly prove an offer of regular work in the statutorily prescribed form and manner.

Industrial injuryDeputy SheriffCirculatory systemHeart diseasePermanent disabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)ReconsiderationLabor Code section 3212.5Heart trouble presumption
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03346 [205 AD3d 573]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2022

Lopez v. Halletts Astoria LLC

Plaintiff, an S&E employee, was injured at a construction site while fixing a misaligned hoist elevator when an adjacent ascending hoist elevator struck his foot. The Supreme Court initially denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and specific Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, and granted plaintiff summary judgment on those claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this order. It granted defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on Industrial Code § 23-6.1 (c) (1) and denied plaintiff summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and Labor Law § 241 (6) (Industrial Code § 23-6.3 (g)) claims. The court found issues of fact regarding whether permitting concurrent hoist operation was a proximate cause of the injury and whether defendant New Line Structures & Development LLC had the authority to control the activity. The decision also affirmed the severance of the third-party action due to inexcusable delay.

Construction accidentHoist elevator injuryPersonal injuryLabor Law claimsIndustrial Code violationsProximate causeSummary judgmentThird-party liabilityAppellate reviewForeseeability of risk
References
12
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06470 [188 AD3d 506]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Singh v. Manhattan Ford Lincoln, Inc.

Plaintiff Balwinder Singh appealed an order denying his motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 241 (6) claims and granting defendants' motions to dismiss various claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The court reinstated Singh's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(2)) and his common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Manhattan Ford Lincoln, Inc. However, it dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(1)) against Benny & Son Construction Corp. The decision noted triable issues of fact regarding whether the debris causing the slip was integral to Singh's work and MFL's constructive notice of the debris. Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(1) was found inapplicable due to the accident's location in an open area, not a passageway.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeWorkplace SafetyConstruction AccidentSlip and FallDebris AccumulationConstructive NoticeAppellate DivisionLiability
References
6
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06805
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2025

Bordonaro v. E.C. Provini Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Steven Bordonaro, a carpenter for CBI Drywall, was injured unloading a 1000-pound cabinet from a truck with a pallet jack, falling four feet from a liftgate. He filed claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's orders, dismissing Labor Law § 241(6) and common-law negligence claims against most defendants. However, triable issues remained for E.C. Provini Co. under Labor Law § 200 regarding its failure to provide a forklift. Conditional contractual indemnification was granted to non-owner defendants from CBI Drywall, and contractual indemnification claims against CBI were reinstated for certain other defendants. Common-law indemnification and contribution claims against CBI were dismissed due to workers' compensation and absence of grave injury.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkPallet JackFour-foot FallIndustrial Code ViolationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsGrave InjuryThird-Party Claim
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of E.E. Austin & Son, Inc., sustained injuries after slipping and falling on accumulated grain dust and a hose while working on a construction project at a grain silo owned by Nestle Purina Petcare Company. Plaintiff commenced an action against Nestle Purina Petcare Company, alleging Labor Law violations and common-law negligence. Nestle, in turn, filed a third-party action against Austin for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment from both Nestle and Austin, leading to this appeal and cross-appeal. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, granting summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and partially dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (except for the part based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2)). However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 200 claim, common-law negligence, and contractual indemnification, citing triable issues of fact.

Labor LawCommon-law negligenceSummary judgmentContractual indemnificationGrain silo accidentConstruction project injuryTripping hazardPremises liabilitySupervisory controlIndemnity provision
References
27
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. 2020 NY Slip Op 05266 [187 AD3d 1264]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2020

Matter of Jordan (Alterna Holdings Corp.--Commissioner of Labor)

This case concerns Robin E. Jordan's claim for unemployment insurance benefits against Alterna Holdings Corporation. The Department of Labor initially deemed Jordan an employee, making Alterna liable for unemployment insurance contributions. An Administrative Law Judge subsequently overruled this determination, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, reinstating the initial findings. The Appellate Division, Third Department, ultimately reversed the Board's decision, concluding that there was insufficient substantial evidence to establish an employment relationship between Alterna and Jordan, highlighting Alterna's lack of control over her work methods and schedule.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorControl TestSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawLabor LawSales RepresentativeHaircare Industry
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 8,720 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