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. OAK 0337799; OAK 0337800
Regular
May 19, 2008

LI-PING LI vs. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE/AIG

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend factual findings and the case caption. The Board affirmed the finding of temporary total disability for the applicant, Li-Ping Li, due to an industrial injury sustained while employed by Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., insured by American Home Assurance. The decision was amended to correct the employer's name, identify the correct insurance carrier, and exclude a specific period from the temporary total disability award.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLi-Ping LiWal-Mart AssociatesInc.American Home AssuranceFrank Gates Service CompanyOAK 0337799OAK 0337800Opinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsideration
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03795 [239 AD3d 942]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2025

Garcia v. Fed LI, LLC

The injured plaintiff, Jose Garcia, and his wife, suing derivatively, initiated an action after Mr. Garcia fell from an unsecured extension ladder while working on a commercial property. The property was owned by Fed LI, LLC, GSM LI, LLC, ICA LI, LLC, and SAF LI, LLC, and leased by Multi Packaging Solutions, Inc., with Mr. Garcia employed by J.P.S. Electric Co., Inc. (JPS). The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which the Supreme Court denied. The Appellate Division reversed this part of the order, granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding that a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) was established and was a proximate cause of the injuries, as the defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices or rebut the prima facie showing of negligence. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision regarding contractual indemnification, ruling that JPS was not contractually obligated to indemnify the MPS entities, as a post-accident purchase order's general reference to 'Terms and Conditions' was insufficient to establish a retroactive indemnification agreement.

Ladder FallConstruction Site InjuryLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment MotionIndemnification AgreementContract InterpretationRetroactivityThird Party LiabilityAppellate DivisionSuffolk County
References
22
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07342 [189 AD3d 970]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2020

Benitez v. Bolla Operating LI Corp.

Walter Hernandez Benitez, a former deli worker, initiated a putative class action against Bolla Operating LI Corp. and other entities. He sought unpaid 'spread-of-hours' compensation, alleging that his employment at various Bolla Market locations entitled him to such pay under the Hospitality Industry Wage Order. The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court, Nassau County. The Appellate Division, Second Department, further affirmed this ruling, concluding that the Bolla Market locations did not meet the regulatory definitions of 'restaurants' or '[f]ast [f]ood [e]stablishments.' Consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to the claimed spread-of-hours compensation, and his motion for class action certification was denied as academic.

Unpaid WagesSpread-of-Hours CompensationHospitality Industry Wage OrderClass ActionMotion to DismissCPLR 3211Deli WorkersRestaurant DefinitionFast Food EstablishmentAppellate Division
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02605
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2021

Ping Lin v. 100 Wall St. Prop. L.L.C.

Plaintiff Ping Lin sustained injuries after falling from a six-foot A-frame ladder while working on a drop ceiling on June 3, 2015. He was holding a piece of sheetrock with one hand and reaching for a drill with the other when the sheetrock fell, hitting his head, causing him to drop the drill and the ladder to shake, leading to his fall. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, which had denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court found that defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to properly secure the ladder against movement or slippage, thus not providing adequate protection. The court rejected arguments regarding inconsistent statements, intervening superseding cause, or plaintiff's sole proximate cause/recalcitrant worker status, concluding that the ladder was an inadequate safety device for the work performed.

Summary JudgmentLadder AccidentPersonal InjuryConstruction Site SafetyWorker FallAppellate ReviewLiabilityHazardous EquipmentNegligenceWorkplace Accident
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 2013

De Ping Song v. 47 Old Country, Inc.

Plaintiffs, salon workers (De Ping Song, Song Li, Yan Zhang, Chun Sen Zhu, Yang Xu, Jie Yi), sued the original defendants (Kui Soon Cho, Bae Kim, Hae Sook Kim, Hye Young Choi, and 47 Old Country, Inc.) for wage, hour, and employment discrimination violations, securing a $474,011.43 judgment in 2012 that remained unpaid. Subsequently, plaintiffs initiated a Rule 69 proceeding to impose successor liability on third-parties Inhae Corp. and Myung Ryun Park. The court applied the 'substantial continuity' test, finding Inhae Corp. liable as a successor due to clear notice of the judgment and the original defendants' likely inability to pay. However, Inhae Corp.'s liability was limited to the original jury verdict amount for unpaid wages, excluding liquidated damages and prejudgment interest, and Myung Ryun Park was not held personally liable.

Wage and Hour LawEmployment DiscriminationSuccessor LiabilityFLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act)Rule 69 FRCPCPLR 5225Substantial Continuity TestDe Facto MergerMere ContinuationFraudulent Transfer
References
28
Case No. ADJ6998138
Regular
Feb 13, 2012

WAI CHIU LI vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of Los Angeles' Petition for Reconsideration. The Board upheld its prior decision to increase applicant Wai Chiu Li's permanent disability rating from 15% to 36% for a left forearm injury. This increase was based on the agreed medical examiner's use of clinical judgment to incorporate grip strength loss, consistent with the AMA Guides. The Board emphasized that physician judgment is crucial in accurately assessing impairment according to the Guides.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy SheriffIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityReconsiderationAmerican Medical Association GuidesAMA GuidesAgreed Medical ExaminerAMEGrip Strength
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. Eddy's LI RV Center, Inc.

Plaintiff William D. Jackson initiated this action alleging breach of contract and various warranty claims against Eddy’s LI RV Center, Winnebago Industries, Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation, Wachovia Bank, and Wells Fargo Dealer Services. The lawsuit stemmed from the purchase of a 2005 motor home that was allegedly "replete with defects, structurally and mechanically" since its delivery in November 2005. Defendants sought dismissal, primarily contending that the claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations under the New York Uniform Commercial Code. The court agreed, finding no explicit warranty extending to future performance or valid grounds for equitable tolling of the limitations period. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing all of Jackson's claims as untimely.

Breach of ContractWarranty ClaimsMagnuson-Moss Warranty ActNew York UCCStatute of LimitationsMotor Home DefectsEquitable TollingPrivity of ContractProduct LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
53
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00646
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2024

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Amtrust N. Am., Inc.

In this subrogation action, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as a no-fault insurer, sought to recover benefits paid to its subrogors who were also seeking workers' compensation benefits from Amtrust North America, Inc. The Supreme Court initially dismissed State Farm's unjust enrichment complaint, asserting the Workers' Compensation Board's primary jurisdiction over the coverage dispute. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order. The court held that the Workers' Compensation Board indeed has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law and the causal relationship of medical expenses to the accident. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for a new determination after a resolution by the Workers' Compensation Board.

SubrogationUnjust EnrichmentNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionAppellate ReviewMedical ExpensesMotor Vehicle AccidentReimbursementRemittal
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ping Chen ex rel. United States v. EMSL Analytical, Inc.

Plaintiff Ping Chen, a former lab director, brought a False Claims Act action against EMSL Analytical, Inc. and several air monitoring companies. He alleged that the defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud the government by submitting "fake" air samples or "false" testing reports related to asbestos abatement projects and then billing for these fraudulent services. The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting that the claims were barred by the FCA's public disclosure provision and that the plaintiff failed to plead fraud with particularity. The Court granted the dismissal, finding that the alleged fraud was substantially similar to information already publicly disclosed through prior government prosecutions (CES and Todaro) and that Chen was not an "original source" of new information. The Court also determined that the complaint lacked the necessary particularity for fraud allegations and denied the defendants' motions for attorneys' fees.

Asbestos FraudFalse Claims ActQui Tam ActionPublic Disclosure BarRule 9(b) Pleading StandardLack of ParticularityEnvironmental Testing IndustryAir MonitoringGovernment Contracting FraudFraudulent Billing
References
55
Case No. ADJ4129683 (SJO 0254080), ADJ4083400 (SJO 0260764)
Regular
Dec 15, 2016

LI JUAN LIU vs. WALGREENS FAMILY OF COMPANIES, DBA TAKE CARE; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE administered by SEDGWICK CMS

This case involved an applicant, Li Juan Liu, who sustained multiple injuries while employed by Walgreens. The defendant sought reconsideration of an earlier award, disputing the extent of the applicant's injuries and her entitlement to ongoing benefits. Following a commissioners' settlement conference, the parties negotiated and signed a Compromise and Release agreement for $1,000,000. The Appeals Board rescinded the original award and approved this settlement, finding it adequate after reviewing the record and recommendations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardCompromise and ReleaseAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryTemporary Disability IndemnityMedical TreatmentHome Health CareTransportation Services
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 29 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