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. 06-cv-05285
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2014

Muszkatel v. 90 Church Street Ltd. Partnership

Jerzy Muszkatel, an asbestos abatement worker, sued multiple defendants (owners, environmental consultants, contractors, subcontractors) for common law negligence and violations of New York Labor Law sections 200 and 241(6), alleging injuries from working in buildings near the World Trade Center post-9/11 due to inadequate safety equipment and procedures for "alkaline-based" dust. The District Court, presided by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, denied in part and granted in part the defendants' motions for summary judgment. The court found triable issues of fact regarding supervisory control and premises liability under Labor Law 200 for most defendants across multiple sites (2 World Financial Center, 90 Church Street, 140 West Street). It also sustained Section 241(6) claims for these sites concerning specific Industrial Code violations (23-1.5(c)(3), 23-1.7(h), 1.8(c)(4), 23-1.8(b)(l)), but dismissed claims for work at 101 Barclay Street and 7 Dey Street due to lack of "construction, excavation or demolition" activity, and dismissed all claims against Indoor Environmental Technologies, Inc.

asbestos abatementWorld Trade Center9/11 clean-upsummary judgmentNew York Labor Lawnegligenceindustrial code violationsoccupational hazardspersonal protective equipmentsite safety
References
29
Case No. 2016-334 S C
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2017

2 & 9 Acupuncture, P.C. v. 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by 2 & 9 Acupuncture, P.C. from an amended order that granted summary judgment to 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company, dismissing a complaint to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant argued it had paid the plaintiff in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendant failed to prima facie demonstrate proper denial of payment for services billed under CPT codes 97026 and 97016. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding these specific CPT codes was denied.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentCPT CodesWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewInsurance LawMedical BillingAcupunctureSuffolk CountyPayment Dispute
References
3
Case No. ADJ9474687
Regular
Jun 14, 2019

GUSTAVO NIEVES UGALDE vs. ROCKWELL DRYWALL, INC., STARR INDEMNITY, adjusted by YORK RISK MANAGEMENT GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior award and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding the applicant's psychiatric injury was a consequence of his physical injury, not directly from a violent act. The Board determined the applicant's fall from stilts, while accepted as industrial, did not meet the legal definition of a "violent act" required for an increased psychiatric impairment rating under Labor Code § 4660.1(c)(2)(A). Therefore, the case must be returned to allow the WCJ to first determine if the injury qualifies as "catastrophic" under § 4660.1(c)(2)(B) for potential increased psychiatric rating. The WCAB acknowledged the applicant's credible testimony regarding the use of stilts and the psychiatric QME's opinion on causation but found the issue of a "violent act" was not sufficiently established.

AOE/COEViolent ActCompensable ConsequencePsychiatric InjuryPermanent DisabilityReconsiderationFindings and AwardMedical EvaluatorVocational ExpertLabor Code Section 4660.1
References
11
Case No. ADJ9642079
Regular
Oct 14, 2020

JESUS AGUILAR vs. LA VINA CONTRACTING, INC., STAR INSURANCE

This case concerns a clerical error in a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB granted reconsideration to correct a miscitation of Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(B) to 4656(c)(3)(C) for the basis of temporary disability. The Board also clarified the species of benefits against which attorney fees were applied. The substantive findings of the original award remain unchanged.

Petition for ReconsiderationClerical ErrorLabor Code section 4656(c)(3)(C)Temporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityLife PensionAttorney FeesWCJAppeals BoardFindings and Award
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Case No. ADJ6699348
Regular
Mar 17, 2016

KANON MONKIEWICZ vs. RM STORE FIXTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to find that Labor Code section 4903.8(a) does not preclude awards to lien claimants Rx Funding Solutions, LLC and PharmaFinance, LLC. This is because the 2014 amendments to section 4903.8(a)(2) specify that it does not apply to assignments completed prior to January 1, 2013. Both of the lien claimants' assignments were made before this date, thus exempting them from the preclusion. The WCAB is amending its previous order and returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings on the merits of the liens.

Labor Code 4903.8Lien claimantsAssignment of receivablesCessation of businessPharmacy lienMedical lienSB 863AB 2732Prospective vs. retrospective applicationWCAB rules
References
10
Case No. 26 NY3d 107 (2016)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2016

S.B. v. A.C.C.

This case addresses the definition of "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) for purposes of custody and visitation for unmarried couples. The New York Court of Appeals overrules its 1991 decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which had limited parental standing to biological or adoptive parents. The Court now holds that a non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing if they can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive and raise a child together. In Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., the Appellate Division's order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings under this new standard. In Matter of Estrellita A. v Jennifer L.D., the Appellate Division's order is affirmed, upholding standing based on judicial estoppel. This decision aims to address the unworkability of the Alison D. rule in light of evolving familial relationships, particularly for same-sex couples, and to protect the best interests of children.

Parental RightsCustodyVisitationSame-Sex CouplesNontraditional FamiliesEquitable EstoppelJudicial EstoppelPre-Conception AgreementDomestic Relations LawOverruling Precedent
References
28
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00482 [179 AD3d 546]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2020

Matter of Maxine B. v. Richard C.

This case concerns an appeal by Richard C. against an order of protection issued in favor of his mother, Maxine B., by the Family Court of Bronx County. The order was based on a finding that Richard C. committed menacing in the third degree. Richard C. argued that Maxine B. had stated she did not want the order, but the Appellate Division noted that other evidence, including sworn testimony from a social worker and counsel's representations made outside Richard C.'s presence, indicated Maxine B.'s need for protection. The court affirmed the finding that Richard C. intentionally placed Maxine B. in fear of physical injury, resulting in a black eye, and upheld the Family Court's credibility assessments. Other arguments regarding evidence admission, right to counsel, and the social worker's authority were dismissed as unpreserved or without specific prejudice. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the order of protection.

Order of ProtectionMenacing Third DegreeFamily Court ActAppellate DivisionCredibility AssessmentEvidence AdmissibilityRight to CounselFamily OffenseDomestic ViolenceAffirmation
References
3
Case No. ADJ8469531, ADJ9267403
Regular
May 02, 2019

KAREN DOUGLAS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision that barred the applicant's psychiatric claim under Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(1). The WCAB rescinded the original Findings and Award for both consolidated cases. The matters are returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision, guided by a subsequent WCAB en banc opinion addressing section 4660.1(c). The WCAB did not address other issues raised in the applicant's petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPsychiatric claimLabor Code section 4660.1(c)(1)Permanent total disabilityInjury to body partsReport and RecommendationPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental pleading
References
1
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
Showing 1-10 of 13,013 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