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. ADJ9338501
Regular
Nov 17, 2017

MARTIN TORRES vs. LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision in the case of Martin Torres v. Loral Landscaping, Inc. However, the petitioner subsequently withdrew their Petition for Reconsideration. Consequently, the WCAB vacated its order granting reconsideration and dismissed the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationVacatedDismissedLoral LandscapingSecurity National Insurance CompanyAmtrust North AmericaMartin TorresADJ9338501
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nichols v. BDS Landscape Design

Deborah Nichols, injured in a slip and fall in 2005, sought to enforce an oral settlement for a negligence claim against BDS Landscape Design, William Dobson, III, and National Grange Mutual Insurance. Despite reaching an agreement contingent on a workers' compensation lien waiver, National Grange later disputed the settlement and claimed the action was time-barred after Nichols received the necessary consent. Nichols initiated a special proceeding to compel payment, which the Supreme Court granted. On appeal, the higher court reversed the lower court's order, converting the special proceeding into an action, and held that Nichols failed to establish the existence and terms of the settlement agreement as a matter of law.

Personal InjurySlip and FallNegligenceSettlement AgreementBreach of ContractStatute of LimitationsSpecial ProceedingConversion of ActionWorkers' Compensation LienInsurance Dispute
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Enriquez v. Home Lawn Care & Landscaping, Inc.

The claimant filed for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining an injury from falling off a ladder while working for Home Lawn Care and Landscaping, Inc. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially determined an employer-employee relationship existed and that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these findings and found Home Lawn Care had violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b) due to an untimely notice of controversy. Home Lawn Care appealed. The appellate court agreed that the Board erred in finding a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b) but upheld the Board's determination of an employer-employee relationship and that the injury arose from employment, thus modifying and affirming the Board's decisions.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipScope of EmploymentAccidental InjuryNotice of ControversySubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationAppellate ReviewLadder FallGutter Cleaning
References
12
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06165
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2023

Zapototsky v. Ascape Landscape & Constr. Corp.

This case concerns a personal injury action brought by Orest Zapototsky after he slipped on ice at an outlet mall. The plaintiff sued Ascape Landscape & Construction Corp., responsible for snow removal, and the property owners, Simon Property Group, L.P., and Premium Outlet Partners, L.P. The property owners, referred to as the Simon defendants, sought conditional summary judgment on cross-claims against Ascape for contractual indemnification, breach of duty to defend, and attorney's fees, which the Supreme Court denied. Ascape's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing these cross-claims was granted by the lower court. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of the Simon defendants' motion, finding triable issues of fact regarding Ascape's contractual performance. However, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by denying Ascape's cross-motion, concluding that Ascape also failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that the accident was unrelated to its services. Thus, the appeals court ruled that triable issues of fact remain concerning Ascape's obligations to indemnify and defend the Simon defendants.

Personal InjurySlip and FallIce Removal ContractContractual IndemnificationBreach of Contractual Duty to DefendAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewSnow Removal
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stachura v. 615-51 Street Realty Corp.

The defendants third-party plaintiffs, 615-51 Street Realty Corp. and New Deal Realty Corp., appealed an order denying summary judgment to New Deal Realty Corp. on a contractual indemnification claim and granting dismissal of that claim to the third-party defendant, J&L Landscaping Inc. The appellate court dismissed the appeal of 615-51 Street Realty Corp. The court reversed the order pertaining to New Deal Realty Corp., finding that the 'hold harmless' agreement between New Deal and J&L was a valid and binding contract supported by consideration and not rendered unenforceable by General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. New Deal Realty Corp. successfully demonstrated its freedom from negligence, and J&L Landscaping Inc. failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Consequently, summary judgment was awarded in favor of New Deal Realty Corp. on its contractual indemnification claim against J&L Landscaping Inc.

Construction AccidentContractual IndemnificationHold Harmless AgreementSummary JudgmentThird-Party ClaimWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral Obligations LawAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury DamagesNegligence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anaren Microwave, Inc. v. Loral Corp.

Amaren Microwave Inc. sued Loral Corp., Dr. Victor D. Cohen, and Louis H. Oberndorf, alleging antitrust and RICO violations stemming from a defense contract procurement fraud. Amaren, a subcontractor for Litton, claimed injury because Loral allegedly used proprietary information to win an Air Force contract, leading to Litton losing the bid and Amaren consequently losing its subcontract. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, holding that Amaren’s alleged lost profits were a derivative injury of Litton’s harm and therefore too remote to establish proximate cause under federal antitrust and RICO statutes. Consequently, the federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the pendent state law claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Summary JudgmentAntitrust LawRICO ActProcurement FraudProximate CauseDerivative InjuryFederal Civil ProcedureContract DisputeDefense IndustrySubcontractor Standing
References
13
Case No. 91 CV 5056; 92 CV 0128
Regular Panel Decision

Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

Plaintiff Loral Fairchild Corporation (Loral) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit, subsequently expanding it to include claims against National Semiconductor Corporation (NSC) and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation (FSC) concerning patent ownership. NSC and FSC sought to dismiss or stay these additional claims, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the existence of ongoing patent ownership litigation in a California state court. While acknowledging the presence of supplemental jurisdiction for the ownership claims, the court ultimately exercised its discretion to abstain from immediate adjudication. After evaluating factors such as the order of jurisdiction, forum convenience, protection of federal plaintiff's rights, and the potential for piecemeal litigation, the court concluded that a stay was the most appropriate course of action. Consequently, the federal actions were ordered to be stayed pending the resolution of the related patent ownership dispute in the California state court.

Patent infringementPatent ownershipSupplemental jurisdictionAbstention doctrineJudicial estoppelStay of proceedingsIntertwined claimsFederal court discretionCalifornia state courtNew York state law
References
23
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03354
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2021

Matter of DeWald v. Fiorella's Landscaping

Claimant Eric M. DeWald sought workers' compensation benefits for neck and back injuries sustained in 2014. Benefits were initially awarded but later suspended due to the claimant's failure to provide timely medical progress reports. In 2019, after claimant requested reinstatement, the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that he failed to demonstrate attachment to the labor market and rescinded the award of benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the finding of a temporary partial disability implicitly required the claimant to provide evidence of labor market attachment, which he failed to do. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination.

Labor Market AttachmentTemporary Partial DisabilityBenefit SuspensionMedical Progress ReportsIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate Division ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board RulingClaimant ObligationProof of DisabilityEntitlement to Benefits
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2015

Matter of Rosales v. Eugene J. Felice Landscaping

The case involves an appeal by an employer and its workers’ compensation carrier from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Board affirmed a WCLJ ruling that the claimant, a landscaper injured in 2010, sustained a permanent partial disability and a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity. The WCLJ had considered various vocational factors, including the claimant's age, limited English skills, and low education, to determine a 10% wage-earning capacity and a $300 weekly benefit rate. The employer argued that vocational factors should not be used to determine wage-earning capacity for computing the compensation rate in permanent partial disability cases. However, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, distinguishing permanent from temporary disabilities and concluding that vocational factors are appropriately considered under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a) when fixing wage-earning capacity in permanent partial disability cases without actual earnings, especially when the injury contributed to the loss.

permanent partial disabilitywage-earning capacityvocational factorsWorkers' Compensation Law § 15benefit durationcompensation ratephysical impairmentback surgerylimited English skillseducational background
References
10
Case No. No. 96 Civ. 8835(WCC)
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1998

Ell v. S.E.T. Landscape Design, Inc.

Plaintiffs Bobbie J. Ell and Thomas McVeigh filed a state court action in Orange County, New York, alleging injuries from a negligently sprayed fertilizer by employees of S.E.T. Landscape Design, Inc., including Glenn Nixon. Nixon later impleaded LESCO, Inc., the fertilizer manufacturer. Plaintiffs then amended their complaint to directly sue LESCO. LESCO removed the action to federal court, claiming federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, asserting complete preemption by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Defendant Nixon, joined by plaintiffs and S.E.T., moved for remand. The court granted the motion, finding that FIFRA does not completely preempt state law and therefore, federal question jurisdiction was lacking. Additionally, the court noted that removal was improper due to the lack of unanimous consent from all defendants.

Pesticide PreemptionFederal Question JurisdictionRemandWell-Pleaded Complaint RuleComplete PreemptionFIFRAState Law ClaimsUnanimous Consent RuleRemoval JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 99 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