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. ADJ8160241, ADJ8160224
Regular
Oct 04, 2012

MIGUEL DOMINGUEZ vs. MYERS CONTAINER,LLC

This case concerns Miguel Dominguez versus Myers Container, LLC, consolidated under Case No. ADJ8160241 and ADJ8160224. A petition for removal was filed by the applicant and subsequently withdrawn. As a result of the withdrawal, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing the petition for removal. No further action will be taken on this matter.

Petition for RemovalDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMIGUEL DOMINGUEZMYERS CONTAINERLLCCCMSIADJ8160241ADJ8160224
References
0
Case No. CV-23-2242
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Miguel Juncal

Claimant Miguel Juncal suffered physical injuries from a fall at work in November 2021 and was awarded temporary total disability benefits. The employer and its carrier, Maspeth Remodeling Co. et al., appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied their request to retroactively reduce Juncal's benefits. The carrier sought a reduction based on an independent medical examination from August 2022, arguing that the reduction should be effective from the IME date or the RFA-2 filing date. The Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, holding that benefits should continue at the temporary total disability rate until the March 2023 hearing, interpreting 12 NYCRR 300.23 (b) (2) as directory rather than mandatory regarding the 20-day hearing timeframe. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Disability BenefitsBenefit ReductionIndependent Medical ExaminationPsychiatric InjuriesOrthopedic InjuriesAdministrative LawRegulatory InterpretationAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
5
Case No. CV-23-1577
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Miguel Maria Santos

Miguel Maria Santos, a pizza delivery person, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his claim for benefits. Santos alleged injuries from a fall off his electric bicycle on June 14, 2021, while working for 77 GP, Inc. However, 77 GP, Inc. and its carrier controverted the claim, asserting no employer-employee relationship existed at the time of the accident. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge credited the employer's testimony that Santos was discharged on June 2, 2021, for drinking on the job, prior to his injuries. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, and the Appellate Division also affirmed, finding the Board's determination supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' compensationEmployer-employee relationshipSubstantial evidenceCredibility assessmentPizza deliveryDischarged employeeBicycle accidentAppellate reviewClaim denial
References
5
Case No. ADJ10089400, ADJ10089398
Regular
May 06, 2019

Martin Dominguez vs. John Dondoro Farms, Preferred Employers

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Martin Dominguez's petition for reconsideration of a stipulated award. Dominguez contended that the stipulated permanent disability percentages and indemnity calculations were incorrect, citing a prior attorney's opinion and check stubs. However, these allegations lacked supporting evidence or sworn testimony in the record. The WCAB treated his petition as a request to set aside the award and remanded the case to the trial level for a hearing. This allows Dominguez to present evidence and for the judge to make a new decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationStipulated AwardPermanent DisabilityIndustrial InjuryWCJAppeals BoardGood CauseSet AsideStipulationsLabor Code
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1996

Dominguez v. Lafayette-Boynton Housing Corp.

Plaintiff Jose Dominguez was injured while working on a scaffold at a building in Bronx County, employed by Sun Construction, a subcontractor for general contractor Proto Construction, which was hired by building owner Lafayette-Boynton Housing Corporation. The accident occurred when Dominguez and a co-worker were maneuvering the scaffold, weighted with bricks and cement, around an air conditioning unit, causing it to swing back and smash into the unit, injuring Dominguez's wrist. Plaintiffs initiated a personal injury action, alleging Labor Law violations against Lafayette-Boynton and Proto. The IAS Court initially granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, asserting the accident was not a 'special hazard' contemplated by the law. However, the appellate court reversed, holding that the accident was indeed gravity-related and fell under the statute's protection, thus denying the defendants' dismissal motions and granting plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action.

Scaffolding accidentElevation-related hazardGravitySummary judgmentAppellate reversalWorker injuryConstruction siteBuilding refacingAir conditioner obstructionStatutory interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Workers' Compensation Board v. Met-Impro Services, Inc.

This case involves four related actions under Workers' Compensation Law § 26 concerning the enforcement of a Workers' Compensation award. The Supreme Court had erroneously granted defendant Robert San Miguel's motion to vacate judgments against him. San Miguel, identified as the president of the corporate employers, was held personally liable for unpaid benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 26-a (1) (a). The court clarified that personal liability for corporate officers does not depend on active management or involvement in the underlying accident. Furthermore, there is no statutory basis to vacate a judgment merely because an officer was not specifically named in the initial administrative determination. Consequently, San Miguel's vague denial of involvement was insufficient, and his motion to vacate the judgments against him was denied.

Workers' CompensationPersonal LiabilityCorporate OfficerJudgment VacationAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityUnpaid BenefitsNew York Law
References
3
Case No. ADJ4039631 (VNO 0418594) ADJ8268349
Regular
May 21, 2013

ROSEMARY DOMINGUEZ vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

This case involves Rosemary Dominguez's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order. Dominguez, represented by counsel but filing her own petition, alleged her attorney committed fraud, had a conflict of interest, and that she didn't understand the documents she signed. The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's report, adopted by the Board, found no good cause for reconsideration. The petition was denied because the applicant's claims of misunderstanding and fraud could have been raised at the hearing, and no new evidence was presented.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeStipulation and AwardCompromise and ReleaseBreach of ContractConflict of InterestFraudDuressGood Cause
References
1
Case No. ADJ14138679
Regular
Jun 16, 2025

Enrique Dominguez vs. Via Transportation, Inc.; United States Fire Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant Enrique Dominguez's petition for reconsideration of a March 3, 2025 Findings and Award. The initial F&A found Dominguez to be an independent contractor, not an employee, of Via Transportation, Inc. The Appeals Board rescinded the F&A, ruling that the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) erred by not properly applying the burden of proof on the defendant to rebut the employment presumption under Labor Code section 2775 and Business and Professions Code section 7451. The case has been returned to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with the Board's decision.

Independent contractoremployment presumptionABC testProposition 22Business and Professions Code Section 7451network companyright to controlburden of proofdriver partnerTNC platform
References
18
Case No. 93
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Francisca Garcia

Francisca Garcia, spouse of deceased volunteer Miguel Garcia, filed a death benefits claim more than two years after his death in July 2016. Miguel Garcia had received lifetime benefits for health conditions contracted while volunteering in the 9/11 World Trade Center recovery efforts. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) and Appellate Division disallowed the claim as untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, which sets a two-year statute of limitations for death benefits. The central legal question was whether Workers' Compensation Law § 168, which extends filing periods for 'participants' in WTC recovery, applies to claims by survivors. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that § 168's language, referring explicitly to 'a claim by a participant,' does not extend to claims made by beneficiaries, thus the claim remains barred by § 28.

Death Benefits ClaimWTC Volunteer9/11 Recovery WorkersStatute of Limitations ExtensionWorkers' Compensation Law Article 8-ASurvivor's Claim TimelinessParticipant DefinitionLegislative Intent InterpretationUntimely Filing DisallowanceAppellate Division Affirmation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dominguez v. Fixrammer Corp.

Plaintiff Hippolito Dominguez sued to recover for injuries sustained while operating a power stud gun for his employer, Creative Structures, Inc., which resulted in the loss of a testicle. The jury awarded $800,000, apportioning liability: 25% to Creative Structures, 40% to the manufacturer Fixrammer Corporation, and 35% to the distributor Barnett Lighting Corporation. The employer settled for $310,000, and the manufacturer dissolved before trial. The plaintiff moved to increase Barnett Lighting Corporation's liability, arguing an inability to enforce judgment against the dissolved manufacturer. The court denied this motion, applying CPLR 1601 and General Obligations Law § 15-108 to limit the distributor's liability for noneconomic damages to its equitable share. The court also denied plaintiff's motion to increase the award for future pain and suffering and the distributor's cross-motion to set aside the verdict. Final judgments were entered against Barnett Lighting Corporation for $308,952 and against Fixrammer Corporation for $343,435.

Joint TortfeasorsLimited LiabilityEquitable ShareSettlement SetoffNoneconomic DamagesEconomic DamagesVerdict RestructuringPost-Trial MotionProduct LiabilityPersonal Injury
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 140 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