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 John Lack Associates, LLC

John Lack Associates, LLC, an agency placing waiters and bartenders, was audited by the Department of Labor, which determined these workers were employees, making John Lack liable for unemployment insurance contributions. This determination was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence of John Lack's control over the workers. The court noted that workers could refuse jobs, often worked for other agencies, provided their own equipment, and were supervised and directed by the client at events, who also paid their remuneration through John Lack. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorUnemployment insurance contributionsAgency controlRight to controlRemittedAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor Law
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05441 [174 AD3d 1295]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2019

People v. Hymes

Defendant Justin Hymes appealed his conviction from Onondaga County Court for predatory sexual assault against a child and endangering the welfare of a child. His appeal raised several contentions, including the denial of his Antommarchi right during sidebar conferences, improper admission of uncharged crime evidence, failure to suppress his statements, and challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. Hymes also argued improper bolstering testimony regarding victim disclosures and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the lack of a limiting instruction. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the judgment, finding the Antommarchi right waived, the victim's testimony not Molineux evidence, his statements voluntary, and the evidence sufficient. The court further ruled that the victim's disclosures were admissible under prompt outcry or to explain the investigative process, and defense counsel provided meaningful representation, despite a dissenting opinion that argued for a new trial due to the lack of a limiting instruction and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Appellate ReviewCriminal LawSexual AssaultChild EndangermentJury SelectionAntommarchi RightMolineux EvidenceSuppression of StatementsEvidentiary IssuesIneffective Assistance of Counsel
References
41
Case No. ADJ9292894
Regular
Jul 20, 2018

ELMER G. ARCHILA-GRACIA vs. GREENVIEW LANDSCAPE AND DESIGN LLC, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer: The WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior order disallowing a lien claim due to a lack of record. The trial judge found no jurisdiction because no evidence of an employment relationship was adduced, but the Appeals Board found the record lacked required findings, evidence summaries, and admitted evidence. Consequently, the matter was returned to the trial level to develop the record on the employment issue and adjudicate the lien claim.

WCABLien ClaimantReconsiderationFindings and OrderJurisdictionEmployment RelationshipLabor Code Section 5313Substantial EvidenceDue ProcessDevelop the Record
References
8
Case No. ADJ11406698
Regular
Feb 03, 2020

JOSE MORENO vs. GREEN VALLEY LABOR INC., STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the applicant sustained a back injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment. The Board found that the Qualified Medical Examiner's (QME) reports provided substantial evidence for injury AOE/COE based on the "reasonable probability" standard. However, the Board found the QME's apportionment opinion lacked the necessary reasoning and detail to be considered substantial evidence. Therefore, the WCJ's findings regarding AOE/COE and the lack of substantial evidence for apportionment were upheld.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical ExaminerQMECumulative traumaPermanent disabilityApportionmentSubstantial evidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
5
Case No. ADJ10755627 ADJ9735622
Regular
Dec 24, 2018

ANTHONY KOUTRIS vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Los Angeles' petition for reconsideration of an award granting temporary total disability (TTD) benefits to applicant Anthony Koutris. The defendant challenged the TTD period from February 8, 2017, to March 9, 2017, arguing it lacked sufficient medical evidence. The Board adopted the judge's report, finding that applicant's testimony and a doctor's report constituted substantial evidence of TTD during that period. A dissenting opinion argued that medical evidence was lacking for the February 8 to March 8, 2017 period, suggesting TTD should have commenced on March 9, 2017.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardlegally uninsuredModified Findings and Awardtemporary total disabilitysubstantial credible medical evidencePetition for ReconsiderationApplicant's testimonyDr. Pelton's reportdissenting opinionconcurrent scientific medical evidence
References
1
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06230 [153 AD3d 1111]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2017

Matter of Prince v. Verizon N.Y.

Felicia Prince sought workers' compensation benefits for an occupational neck injury caused by repetitive stress as a customer service attendant. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found prima facie medical evidence but later discontinued the claim for lack of sufficient medical evidence and failure to prosecute. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, disallowing the claim after determining the record was fully developed and lacked medical support. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion by refusing further development of the record, given that claimant had the opportunity to present evidence and acknowledged its insufficiency.

Occupational diseaseneck injuryrepetitive stressworkers' compensation benefitsmedical evidenceabuse of discretionrecord developmentclaim disallowancefailure to prosecuteAppellate Division
References
4
Case No. No. 46
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2024

The Matter of the Claim of Justin Timperio v. Bronx-Lebanon Hospital

This case clarifies the operation of the rebuttable presumption under New York Workers' Compensation Law § 21 (1). The claimant, Justin Timperio, a resident at Bronx-Lebanon Hospital, was injured during a workplace shooting. While the Workers' Compensation Board found his injuries compensable, the Appellate Division reversed, citing a lack of evidence regarding the assailant's motivation. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that when an injury occurs in the course of employment, it is presumed to arise out of employment unless substantial evidence to the contrary exists. The Court emphasized that a lack of evidence concerning the assailant's motivation does not, by itself, rebut this presumption, especially in the absence of any established personal animosity between the parties.

Workplace ShootingWorkers' CompensationRebuttable PresumptionCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentLack of MotivationAssault InjuryStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewNew York Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ryan v. Trojan Bar & Grill

The Workers’ Compensation Board denied a widow's claim for benefits, finding her decedent's death did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The decedent, president of a Manhattan tavern, was killed in The Bronx on December 31, 1973, in an unexplained location distant from his business, home, or bank. Evidence showed business books were found in his car, but the day's proceeds were missing. The claimant argued for a presumption of compensability given the lack of evidence of deviation. However, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence that the death lacked a necessary nexus to employment, and rejected the application of statutory presumptions due to insufficient proof linking the accident to work activities.

Workers' Compensation AppealCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentDeviation from EmploymentPresumption of CompensabilityAccidental DeathAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardFatal Accident
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2000

Claim of Rogers v. Community Health Center

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from December 6, 2000, which denied her claim for benefits stemming from a work-related back injury sustained in February 1992. The Board had concluded there was insufficient medical evidence to establish a causally related permanent disability. Claimant contended that her medical reports constituted prima facie evidence and that the Board should not have rejected unanimous medical opinion. However, the court found significant discrepancies in the medical reports, noting that some physicians could not determine if the condition was work-related, and chiropractors provided inconsistent dates or lacked specific correlation to the injury. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board appropriately exercised its authority in concluding the medical evidence lacked sufficient probative value on causation.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryCausationMedical EvidencePermanent Partial DisabilityBoard DecisionAppealSufficiency of EvidenceTreating PhysicianChiropractor
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Biberaj v. Pritchard Industries, Inc.

Duljia Biberaj, a former office cleaner for Pritchard Industries, Inc. and member of Local 32BJ Union, filed a lawsuit in 2008 alleging violations of the Labor Management Relations Act, FLSA, NYLL, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. This memorandum opinion addresses the defendants' motions for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment on Biberaj's hybrid breach of collective bargaining agreement and duty of fair representation claims, finding several allegations time-barred and others lacking merit based on the Union's reasonable actions. Furthermore, her FLSA and NYLL claims for minimum wage, timely wages, and overtime were dismissed due to lack of evidence. Finally, her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was also dismissed as the alleged conduct was not sufficiently extreme and she lacked adequate medical evidence.

Labor Management Relations ActFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentEmotional DistressMinimum WageOvertime PayHarassment
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 14,575 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