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. ADJ19747880
Regular
Oct 27, 2025

OLGA MAGANA vs. PARTNERS PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Olga Magana filed a Petition for Reconsideration challenging a Findings and Order from August 4, 2025, which determined her average weekly wage to be $445.03 using Labor Code section 4453(c)(4). She argued that section 4453(c)(1) should apply, yielding $640.00 weekly. The Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's decision that due to the temporary nature of Magana's employment and her inconsistent work history, section 4453(c)(4) more fairly represented her earning capacity, considering all surrounding circumstances rather than just her hours at the time of injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAverage Weekly WageLabor Code Section 4453GoytiaTemporary Agency EmploymentEarning CapacityWCJ Credibility DeterminationSan Francisco
References
6
Case No. 2015-447 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Precious Acupuncture Care, P.C. v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.

Precious Acupuncture Care, P.C., as assignee of Vorel Hopkins, initiated an action against GEICO General Insurance Company to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss claims for services rendered on March 4 and 6, 2013, due to untimely submission, and other claims arguing full payment according to the workers' compensation fee schedule for services billed under CPT codes 97813 and 97814. The Civil Court denied the defendant's cross-motion. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the Civil Court's order, finding that the defendant had presented sufficient proof of full payment for the CPT code services in line with the workers' compensation fee schedule and that the claims from March 4 and 6, 2013, were indeed untimely submitted. Consequently, the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment regarding these specific claims was granted.

No-Fault BenefitsAcupuncture ServicesSummary JudgmentCPT CodesWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleUntimely SubmissionAppellate ReviewCivil Court OrderInsurance Claim
References
2
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00133 [190 AD3d 505]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2021

Santana v. MMF 1212 Assoc L.L.C.

Plaintiff, Juan C. Santana, was injured during demolition work when a ceiling fell and struck him. He brought claims under Labor Law §§ 241 (6) and 200, alleging violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §§ 23-1.8 (c) and 23-3.3 (c). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Richard Mishkin Contracting Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding issues of fact regarding the provision of safety hats and ongoing inspections. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against MMF 1212 Assoc L.L.C. and Finkelstein Timberger East Real Estate LLC, as plaintiff did not oppose and they lacked control over the work. Finally, Mishkin's cross-claims for common-law contribution and indemnification were not dismissed due to conflicting expert opinions on the gravity of plaintiff's brain injury under Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Demolition AccidentFalling ObjectsConstruction SafetyLabor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentContribution ClaimIndemnification ClaimWorkers' CompensationAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05500 [242 AD3d 829]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2025

DeMarco v. C.A.C. Indus., Inc.

The plaintiff, Peter DeMarco, suffered personal injuries when excavation walls collapsed at a Queens work site. He sued C.A.C. Industries, Inc., a contractor that provided a backhoe and operating engineer to his employer, the City of New York Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Supreme Court, Queens County, partially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing claims under Labor Law § 200 and certain Labor Law § 241 (6) violations, while denying dismissal of the common-law negligence claim. The plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendant lacked authority to supervise for the Labor Law claims but failed to demonstrate a special employment relationship, leaving triable issues of fact regarding the common-law negligence claim and whether the defendant's excavation created or exacerbated the dangerous condition.

Excavation CollapseTrench SafetyLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSpecial EmploymentContractor NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary Judgment AppealDuty of Care
References
21
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. 2016-119 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2018

Jing Luo Acupuncture, P.C. v. NY City Tr. Auth.

This case involves an appeal from an order and judgment concerning a claim for first-party no-fault benefits for acupuncture services. The plaintiff, Jing Luo Acupuncture, P.C., as assignee of Sarah Adams, sought to recover unpaid balances from the NY City Transit Authority. The Civil Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant's cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Term reversed the judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. The court also held that the defendant was not precluded from interposing its fee schedule defense, as it had fully paid for services billed under CPT codes 97811, 97813, and 97814 according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion was granted in part for those specific CPT codes, while denied for CPT code 99262 and the seventh cause of action.

Acupuncture ServicesNo-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentFee Schedule DefenseWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleCPT CodesAppellate ReviewInsurance LawTimely DenialFirst-Party Benefits
References
14
Case No. 2016-329 S C
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2017

Spineisland for Chiropractic, P.C. v. 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by Spineisland For Chiropractic, P.C., acting as an assignee, against 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff sought to recover for services billed under CPT code 95831. The District Court of Suffolk County had previously granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, asserting that the defendant had appropriately paid the plaintiff based on the workers' compensation fee schedule. On appeal, the Appellate Term affirmed the lower court's decision. The Appellate Term found that the defendant had adequately demonstrated the proper application of CPT code 95833 for the services billed under CPT code 95831, and the plaintiff failed to present a triable issue of fact.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentCPT codeWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate TermSuffolk CountyAssigneeInsurance disputeChiropractic servicesMedical billing
References
1
Case No. ADJ10295228
Regular
Oct 05, 2017

JEANETTA McCURINE vs. ON TIME STAFFING, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a defendant seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board finding that the applicant's average weekly earnings were $465.40. The defendant argued this finding lacked substantial evidence and that alternative Labor Code sections should apply for calculating average weekly earnings. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the administrative law judge properly applied Labor Code section 4453(c)(1) based on the evidence presented and the applicant's employment history. The defendant failed to present evidence demonstrating that other sections of 4453(c) were more appropriate or that the applicant's earnings were irregular.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAverage Weekly EarningsIndustrial InjuryLumbar SpineCustomer Service RepresentativeLabor Code § 4453(c)Earning CapacitySubstantial Evidence
References
4
Case No. ADJ8429152
Regular
Sep 02, 2014

ROBERT HURLEY vs. CARMEL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's award, arguing the calculation of applicant's average weekly earnings (AWE) was incorrect. The WCJ based the AWE on applicant's recent 40-hour work weeks at $46.00 per hour, totaling $1,840.00. The Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's calculation based on Labor Code § 4453(c)(1), as applicant was demonstrably working full-time hours immediately prior to injury. Furthermore, the Board noted that even under § 4453(c)(4), considering earning capacity, the applicant's overall circumstances supported the finding.

Average Weekly EarningsLabor Code § 4453(c)Petition for ReconsiderationWCJJourneyman Heavy Equipment OperatorCumulative TraumaTemporary Partial DisabilityEarning CapacityMaximum EarnerSporadic Employment
References
4
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06413
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2015

Cunha v. Crossroads II

Evandro Cunha, a laborer, sustained personal injuries at a construction site when an excavator rolled over his legs. He sued Crossroads II, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) based on several Industrial Code provisions, specifically 12 NYCRR 23-4.2 (k), 23-9.4 (h) (4), 23-9.4 (h) (5), and 23-9.5 (c). The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss these claims. The Supreme Court denied this motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order by granting summary judgment dismissing the cause of action based on 12 NYCRR 23-9.4 (h) (5), and otherwise affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the defendants failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment regarding the other cited Industrial Code provisions.

Labor LawPersonal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentExcavator AccidentIndustrial Code ViolationSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewWorkplace Safety RegulationsPrima Facie CaseLiability
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 10,524 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