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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. C & F Builders, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of an electrical contractor (George C. Squires), was injured at a construction site when he fell through a floor opening. He sued various parties, including the framing contractor, C & F Builders, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, while C & F Builders cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss all claims against it. Supreme Court granted C & F Builders' cross-motion regarding the Labor Law claims, finding that C & F Builders, as a prime contractor, lacked the authority to supervise or control the electrical work or enforce safety standards at the site. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that C & F Builders could not be held liable under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6).

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentPrime Contractor LiabilitySupervision and ControlWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryNegligence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giordano v. Forest City Ratner Companies

Brian Giordano, a carpenter, was injured at a construction site when a sheet of plywood struck him. He sued F.C. Foley Square Associates, LLC, and FCR Construction Services, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) based on Industrial Code sections 12 NYCRR 23-2.2 (a) and 23-2.4. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing claims based on both sections. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal regarding 12 NYCRR 23-2.4, finding it inapplicable to poured concrete construction. However, the court reversed the dismissal concerning 12 NYCRR 23-2.2 (a), stating that the defendants failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment because the Court of Appeals had previously reversed a similar precedent regarding the applicability of this section to incomplete forms.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentIndustrial CodePlywood InjuryConcrete WorkFlooring RequirementsAppellate DecisionPrima Facie Entitlement
References
6
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. ADJ1143788 (VNO 0517331) ADJ2670708 (VNO 0517332)
Regular
Jul 01, 2011

SANTIAGO SOTO vs. AUTOZONE, INC., U.S. F& G, Administered By GALLAGHER BASSETT

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant sustained two industrial injuries: one on December 22, 2003 (cervical spine, lumbar spine, left shoulder) and another on September 2, 2004 (right and left knees). The defendant sought reconsideration of the original award, arguing that temporary disability benefits for the earlier injury should be limited by Labor Code section 4656(c)(1). However, the Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that the 104-week limitation under section 4656(c)(1) applies only to injuries occurring after its effective date of April 19, 2004. Since the applicant's first injury predates this date, the limitation does not apply to it, and benefits are awarded accordingly.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAutoZone Inc.U.S. F& GGallagher BassettSantiago SotoAmended Joint Findings and AwardTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityLabor Code section 4656Foster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
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. 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. SBR 0331312
Regular
Feb 19, 2008

ROBERT C. DAVIS vs. L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, overturning the WCJ's award of temporary disability indemnity beyond the statutory two-year limit. The Board held that Labor Code section 4656(c)(1) strictly limits temporary disability payments to 104 weeks within a two-year period from the initial payment date. Although the employer's utilization review practices arguably delayed treatment, the Board found no legal justification for extending payments past the two-year cap.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityLabor Code Section 4656(c)(1)Two-Year Limit104 Compensable WeeksCommencement of PaymentAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Utilization Review (UR)Epidural Injections
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 11,559 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