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. CV-23-0309
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Brenda Fernandez

Claimant Brenda Fernandez appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying death benefits to her late husband, John Fernandez, a track inspector who contracted COVID-19. John died in November 2020, purportedly due to cardiac arrest and pulmonary embolism, after testing positive for COVID-19 in March 2020. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found a work-related injury, the Board later modified and disallowed the claim. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the claimant failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that decedent contracted COVID-19 in the course of his employment. The Court emphasized the lack of substantial evidence regarding specific exposure or elevated risk in the workplace.

COVID-19Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsCausal RelationEmployment ExposureSubstantial EvidenceTrack InspectorPulmonary EmbolismCardiac ArrestAppellate ReviewBurden of Proof
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel

Plaintiff Augustine Fernandez filed a lawsuit in New York State Court following an automobile collision, seeking one million dollars in damages. He named Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel, John Doe, JBN Transport, and Dan Schantz Farm & Greenhouses as defendants. The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction. Fernandez moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing the removal was untimely and the amount in controversy was insufficient. The court, applying the "last-served defendant rule," determined the removal was timely as the last defendant received the summons on April 23, 2004, and the removal petition was filed within 30 days. The court also accepted Fernandez's stated damages of $1 million for diversity jurisdiction purposes, rejecting his attempt to disclaim it. Consequently, Fernandez’s motion to remand the case to state court was denied.

Diversity JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionMotion to RemandTimeliness of RemovalLast-Served Defendant RuleAmount in ControversyService of ProcessStatutory AgentCivil ProcedureSouthern District of New York
References
23
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 02022
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Fernandez v. City of New York

Jose Fernandez, who was allegedly injured at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, sued the City of New York for personal injuries, asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The City moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve a timely notice of claim, as required by General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i. Fernandez opposed, arguing that the notice of claim requirements were preempted by the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). The Supreme Court granted the City's motion to dismiss and denied Fernandez's cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the LHWCA does not alter the state law requirement for a timely notice of claim when pursuing state law causes of action against a non-maritime entity, and the proposed amendment alleging a federal maritime tort was meritless as the accident location was not subject to maritime jurisdiction.

Personal InjuryLabor LawNotice of ClaimLHWCAPreemptionMaritime TortAppellate ProcedureDismissalLeave to AmendBrooklyn Navy Yard
References
10
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04798
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2019

Matter of Mario WW. v. Kristin XX.

Mario WW. commenced a paternity proceeding seeking to be adjudicated the father of a child born to Kristin XX., who was married to Brad XX. The Family Court initially dismissed the petition, and the Appellate Division remitted for a determination on the child's best interests regarding genetic testing. Upon remittal, the Family Court again dismissed the petition, applying the presumption of legitimacy and equitable estoppel, finding that genetic testing was not in the child's best interests. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, emphasizing the child's best interests, the stable family dynamic, and the presumption of legitimacy. The court also upheld a stay-away order of protection against Mario WW. due to his hostile behavior towards the respondents.

Paternity DisputeGenetic TestingBest Interests of ChildPresumption of LegitimacyEquitable EstoppelFamily Court Act Article 5Appellate DivisionOrder of ProtectionChild CustodyMarital Presumption
References
19
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06114
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2022

Fernandez v. Taping Expert, Inc.

The plaintiff, Sandy Joel Fana Fernandez, appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which denied his motion to set aside a jury verdict. Fernandez was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold while painting, claiming a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation against defendants Blima Ruchel Girls School and Keren Yad Veizer, Inc. The jury found the fall did not substantially cause his injuries, a finding supported by defense experts attributing injuries to degenerative causes. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that the verdict was a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor LawJury VerdictAppellate ReviewCausationDegenerative InjuriesEvidence WeightMotion DenialProximate Cause
References
16
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00338 [179 AD3d 1337]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2020

Matter of Fernandez v. REICO Intl. Realty

Misael Fernandez filed a discrimination complaint against REICO International Realty under Workers' Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge after claiming workers' compensation benefits. He was initially represented by a law school graduate from Mobilization for Justice, Inc., and the Workers' Compensation Law Judge awarded counsel fees, which the Board later rescinded, citing 12 NYCRR 302-1.6 which precludes fees for law intern representation. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the general preclusion of fees for law school graduates. However, the court found that Fernandez's legal representative became an admitted attorney mid-representation on July 17, 2017. Consequently, the court modified the Board's decision, ruling that counsel fees should be awarded for services rendered after the representative's admission to the bar, and remitted the matter to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this finding.

Workers' CompensationDiscrimination ClaimRetaliatory DischargeCounsel FeesLaw School Graduate RepresentationLegal FeesAttorney AdmissionAppellate ReviewBoard Decision ModificationRemand
References
1
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05769 [120 AD3d 545]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2014

Fernandez v. Rutman

The plaintiff, Hugo Fernandez, a Serv Pro employee, filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, Sara Rutman, alleging negligence after he fell into a concealed sewer trap in her basement. Despite the defendant warning the plaintiff's supervisor about the hazard, the plaintiff claimed he was unaware of its specific location. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the defendant had established prima facie that she exercised reasonable care in warning the workers, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDuty to WarnHazardous ConditionProperty OwnerSewer TrapConcealed Danger
References
6
Case No. No. 115
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2017

The People v. Mario Arjune

The case concerns Mario Arjune's writ of error coram nobis, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Arjune, an immigrant with cognitive limitations, was convicted of tampering with evidence and weapon possession. His trial counsel filed a notice of appeal but took no further action, leading to its dismissal. Arjune claimed he was unaware of his appellate rights and entitlement to poor person relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, finding Arjune failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance or due diligence, and declined to broaden exceptions to appeal deadlines.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselRight to AppealCoram NobisAppellate ProcedurePoor Person ReliefCognitive LimitationsDeportation ConsequencesTrial Counsel DutiesNotice of AppealDue Diligence
References
20
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07168 [189 AD3d 785]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2020

Fernandez v. Conklin

The plaintiff, Daniel N. Fernandez, commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries after being struck by a vehicle operated by Earl E. Conklin, who had just completed delivering newspapers for Local Media Group, Inc. The plaintiff sought to recover damages from Local Media Group, Inc., under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Local Media Group, Inc. moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not Conklin's employer. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it had no relationship with Conklin or that Conklin was an independent contractor.

Personal InjuryRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewOrange CountyNewspaper DeliveryEmployer-Employee RelationshipScope of Employment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. MHP Land Associates

Jose Fernandez, a painter for Sears Roebuck & Co., sustained injuries after falling from an unsecured ladder lacking safety feet while working. He initiated an action under Labor Law § 240 (1) to recover for these injuries. His motion for summary judgment was initially denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the decision was unanimously reversed, and summary judgment was granted to the plaintiffs. The appellate court determined that the failure to adequately secure the ladder constituted a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), thereby imposing absolute liability on the defendants for the plaintiff's injuries. The defendants' engineer's affidavit was deemed insufficient to create a factual dispute.

Labor LawLadder FallSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityPersonal InjuryWorkplace SafetyAppellate DecisionReversalUnsecured LadderConstruction Accident
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 156 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