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. 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. ADJ3328008 (VNO 0517608)
Regular
May 20, 2011

ELIODORO LOPEZ vs. VIRGIL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL, HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued they were denied due process when the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) amended a prior decision to correct a Labor Code section reference concerning temporary disability indemnity. The Board found that the original reference to Labor Code § 4656(c)(2) was a clerical error, as the WCJ clearly intended to apply Labor Code § 4656(c)(1) based on the date of injury. The Board affirmed the WCJ's authority to correct such clerical errors.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary Disability Indemnity104 week capLabor Code section 4656(c)(1)Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)Industrial InjuryNeck InjuryShoulder InjuryCardiovascular System Injury
References
4
Case No. SFO 0492831
Regular
Jan 23, 2008

ELIAS MONTOYA vs. ASTON BARNES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Board granted reconsideration to clarify the application of Labor Code section 4656 regarding temporary disability indemnity limits. The Board held that "new and further" disability does not extend the 104-week limit under section 4656(c)(1), nor do spinal disc excisions and bone grafts qualify as "amputations" under section 4656(c)(2)(C). Consequently, the applicant is entitled to temporary disability indemnity only up to two years from the date of the first payment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardElias MontoyaAston Barnes Inc.State Compensation Insurance FundSFO 0492831Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityIndustrial InjuryThoracic SpineChest Injury
References
3
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. ADJ6609965, ADJ6827074
Regular
Apr 25, 2013

CHARLES MILLHORN vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES

Here's a summary for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an award for temporary disability benefits. The defendant argued that Labor Code Section 4656(c)(2) should apply, but the Board upheld the award under Section 4656(c)(1). This decision was based on the Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinion that both the 2007 and 2008 injuries contributed to the temporary disability. The Board also noted the applicant's attorney was admonished for attaching an exhibit already in evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityLabor Code Section 4656(c)(1)Labor Code Section 4656(c)(2)Agreed Medical EvaluatorSpecific InjuryCumulative TraumaApportionmentEDD
References
2
Case No. ADJ6905360
Regular
Feb 03, 2011

Raymond Ojeda vs. County of San Mateo, Northern Claims Management

The defendant sought reconsideration of a finding that Labor Code section 4656(c)(1)'s 104-week temporary disability limit began March 23, 2010. The defendant argued salary continuation benefits under Labor Code section 4850 should not count towards this limit. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, adopting the administrative law judge's report. The Board also dismissed a separate petition for reconsideration because no final decision had yet been issued in that case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 4656(c)(1)temporary disability indemnitysalary continuationLabor Code section 4850Findings and Awardpetition for reconsiderationWCJReport and Recommendationaggrieved party
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 10,649 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