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. 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. 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. ADJ3550549 (LAO 0884192)
Regular
Sep 22, 2016

JACK DUPONT (Dec'd), ANYAWAN DUPONT (Widow) vs. C.R. ENGLAND, INC.; XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by BROADSPIRE

This case involves a remand from the Court of Appeals to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) for the purpose of awarding attorney's fees and costs under Labor Code Section 5801. Applicant's attorney and the defendant's attorney jointly stipulated to an award of $11,600.00 to resolve this issue. The WCAB approved this stipulation and returned the matter to the trial level.

Labor Code section 5801attorney's feesWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardremandedstipulationapplicant's attorneydefendant's attorneyjoint lettertrial levelaward
References
0
Case No. ADJ10886261
Regular
Nov 14, 2018

LUIS SANDOVAL vs. PRIME TECH CABINETS, INC, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's prior order, and returned the case for further proceedings. The original order found violations of Labor Code section 4062.3(b) and California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 35(c), striking the Qualified Medical Evaluator's report. This reversal was based on a subsequent en banc decision in *Suon v. California Dairies* that clarified the interpretation and remedies for violations of section 4062.3(b). The trial judge will reconsider the section 4062.3(b) issue and potentially other previously raised issues concerning the QME's reporting.

Petition for RemovalFindings and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorMedical ReportingLabor Code section 4062.3(b)California Code of Regulations section 35(c)En Banc DecisionSuon v. California DairiesRescindedReturned to Trial Level
References
1
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. ADJ11328275
Regular
Dec 10, 2018

DENISE DOYLE vs. TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS) INC., ALLMERICA FINANCIAL BENEFIT INSURANCE COMPANY, HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP

The defendant sought reconsideration of an order allowing the applicant to consult a second physician within the employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The defendant argued that the MPN physician's release from care was not a dispute over diagnosis or treatment, and Labor Code sections 4061 and 4062, requiring medical-legal evaluations, applied instead. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition, finding it was not taken from a final order as it did not determine substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also noted that even if considered on its merits, the petition would be denied because Labor Code Section 4616.3 and Administrative Director Rule 9785(b)(3) allow an employee to seek a second opinion within the MPN when disputing a release from care.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationMedical Provider NetworkMPNLabor Code Section 4616.3Second Physician ConsultMedical-Legal EvaluationFinal OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityThreshold Issue
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. 2018 NY Slip Op 07819 [166 AD3d 1276]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2018

Matter of Kowalik (Commissioner of Labor)

Mandi C. Kowalik appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled her ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits due to her failure to file a valid original claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision. The court found that Kowalik did not earn any wages during the required base periods for her claim, which was effective July 3, 2017. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented that would qualify her for an extension of the base period under Labor Law § 527 (3). The court emphasized that remuneration is deemed earned on the date of payment and dismissed her due process argument.

Unemployment InsuranceClaim EligibilityBase PeriodValid Original ClaimLabor LawAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentAffirmed DecisionPro SeRemuneration
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blyer Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The petitioner sought a preliminary injunction against Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, for alleged recognitional or organizational picketing. This picketing was asserted to be in violation of section 10(1) and section 158(b)(7)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act. The employer, Genmar Electrical Contracting, had recently recognized United Construction Trades & Industrial Employees International Union (UCTIU) as the lawful representative of its employees. The Court found reasonable cause to believe that Local Union No. 3's picketing aimed to force Genmar to recognize their union or compel employees to switch their affiliation, constituting an unfair labor practice. Concluding that injunctive relief was just and proper, the Court granted the preliminary injunction, enjoining Local Union No. 3 from such picketing.

Preliminary InjunctionLabor LawUnfair Labor PracticePicketingNational Labor Relations ActOrganizational PicketingRecognitional PicketingCollective BargainingUnion RepresentationSection 10(l)
References
10
Case No. 2015-1078 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2017

Bronx Acupuncture Therapy, P.C. v. Hereford Ins. Co.

This case involves Bronx Acupuncture Therapy, P.C., as assignee of Niurka Mejia, appealing an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County. The defendant, Hereford Ins. Co., had moved for summary judgment, arguing full payment according to workers' compensation fee schedules. The Civil Court granted the motion, dismissing claims for services billed under codes 97039 (unlisted modality) and 99199 (unlisted special service). The Appellate Term reversed this decision, finding that the defendant failed to request additional verification within 15 business days for these "By Report" designated codes, as required by 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (b). Therefore, the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentAppellate TermWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleUnlisted Medical CodesVerification of ClaimsMoxibustionAcupressureInsurance DisputeHealthcare Provider Reimbursement
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 11,238 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