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. 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. ADJ6757406
Regular
Apr 08, 2013

ESPERANZA CARRILLO vs. INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC. (formerly WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER), REDWOOD FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order dismissing several lien claims. The dismissal was due to the lien claimants' failure to pay the required lien activation fee as mandated by Labor Code section 4903.06(a)(4). The Board also admonished certain lien claimants for failing to properly notify the employer and the Board of changes in their representatives as required by Labor Code section 4903.6(b). The WCJ's report, incorporated by the Board, found the lien claimants' arguments regarding constitutionality and procedural due process to be without merit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimantsLabor Code section 4903.06Lien Activation FeeDismissal of LiensDue ProcessSB 899SB 863EAMS
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Messina v. City of New York

Plaintiff Thomas Messina, an electrician, sustained leg injuries after stepping into an unguarded drainpipe hole while working at Yankee Stadium. He and his spouse filed a lawsuit against the City of New York and the New York Yankees, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). Initially, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim but later reversed its decision upon reargument, deeming the nature of the drainpipe hole a factual question for the jury. However, the appellate court reversed this ruling, clarifying that the interpretation of an Industrial Code regulation is a matter of law. The court concluded that the drainpipe hole, approximately 12 inches in diameter and 7-10 inches deep, did not constitute a "hazardous opening" under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b), thereby entitling the defendants to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Construction site accidentDrainpipe holeHazardous openingSummary judgmentLabor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1)Falling hazardsAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationQuestion of law vs. fact
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 1994

Hess v. B & B Plastics Division of Metal Cladding, Inc.

Plaintiff Carolyn K. Hess sued her former employer B & B Plastics and her union (Local 686 and UAW) for sex discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law. She alleged discriminatory firing by B & B Plastics and discriminatory refusal by the union to pursue her grievance. The union defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that Hess's claim against them constituted a breach of the duty of fair representation, which is preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Hess moved to remand the case to state court, arguing her claims were independent state law actions. The court, citing precedent, found that Hess's state law claims against the union were completely preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to remand those claims to state court was denied, and the court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim against the employer.

Sex discriminationNew York State Human Rights LawLabor Management Relations ActLMRA Section 301Federal preemptionDuty of fair representationMotion to remandFederal question jurisdictionWell-pleaded complaint ruleCollective bargaining agreement
References
14
Case No. ADJ10146503
Regular
Oct 20, 2018

ALAN KOON vs. RZ PLUMBING, INC.; AMTRUST

This case concerns an award of attorney's fees and costs to applicant's attorney, Robert Rassp, pursuant to Labor Code section 5801. The Second District Court of Appeals had previously remanded the matter for this purpose. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed Rassp's request for 13.25 hours of work and $865.59 in costs, totaling $6,165.59. The Board disallowed two hours of travel time due to lack of clarity on the reasonableness and nature of the activity. Ultimately, the Board awarded Rassp a total of $5,365.59 in attorney's fees and costs.

Labor Code section 5801attorney's feescostsremandWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardbill of particularsreasonableness of feestravel time deductionawarded amounttrial level return
References
0
Case No. ADJ7350560
Regular
May 21, 2013

ANDREA BARRERA vs. PET SMART, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order dismissing Expert Medical Management's lien. The lien, filed before January 1, 2013, was subject to a lien activation fee under Labor Code Section 4903.06(a). Expert Medical Management failed to pay this fee, despite multiple opportunities, leading to the dismissal of their lien claim. The Appeals Board adopted the judge's report, which found the lien claimant's arguments regarding Labor Code Section 4903(b) amendments and penalty payments irrelevant to the activation fee requirement.

Lien activation feePetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code §4903.06(a)Medical-legal expensesLabor Code §4903(b)Expert Medical ManagementWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDewayne MarshallStipulations with Request for Award
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. 2025 NY Slip Op 04671 [241 AD3d 717]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2025

Santos v. Leeward Living, LLC

Plaintiff Jose Santos was injured after falling through an unguarded attic floor opening during construction, suing the general contractor and fee owner under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted his motion for summary judgment on liability for both sections, partially based on Industrial Code violations. The Appellate Division modified this, affirming liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and partially under § 241 (6) (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 [b] [1] [i]), while denying the motion for other Industrial Code sections (12 NYCRR 23-1.15, 23-1.16) as inapplicable. The court also established the fee owner's liability and denied their homeowners' exemption claim.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary JudgmentElevation-Related HazardUnguarded OpeningAttic Floor FallConstruction AccidentGeneral Contractor LiabilityFee Owner LiabilityHomeowners' Exemption
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dugandzic v. New York City School Construction Authority

Mirolsav Dugandzic, a painter, sued multiple defendants, including the NYCSCA, Trataros Construction, and Crowe Construction, after slipping on paint remover at Fort Hamilton High School in 1992. He alleged negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200 and 241(6), and Industrial Code section 23-1.7(d). The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the accident was due to his work, they lacked notice of a dangerous condition, and no Labor Law violation. The court found the motions timely and dismissed the Labor Law section 241(6) claim, as the Industrial Code section 23-1.7(d) was deemed inapplicable to the plaintiff's self-created slippery condition. However, the court denied the dismissal of the Labor Law section 200 claim against some defendants, citing a factual dispute over supervisory control. The City's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing all claims against it due to a lack of evidence of its supervision or control.

Labor LawIndustrial CodeWorkplace SafetySummary Judgment MotionNegligence ClaimConstruction Site AccidentSlippery FloorEmployer LiabilitySupervisory ControlHazardous Materials
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2009

Smith v. Broadway 110 Developers, LLC

Raymond Smith, an employee of A&B, sustained chest injuries when a suspended scaffold swung towards a building. Plaintiffs sued defendants, including Pavarini McGovern, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240, and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for defendants on their defense and indemnification claim against third-party defendant A&B, finding no evidence of defendants' negligence. However, it denied summary judgment for defendants on their claim against A&B for failure to procure insurance and also denied their request to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action, citing unresolved issues of fact regarding scaffold adequacy and Industrial Code violations.

New YorkSupreme CourtAppellate DivisionScaffold AccidentLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241(6)IndemnificationSummary JudgmentFailure to Procure InsuranceIndustrial Code
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 10,092 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