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. 2022 NY Slip Op 02400 [204 AD3d 774]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2022

Lazo v. New York State Thruway Auth.

Jose R. Lazo, a construction worker, and his wife, sued the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) for personal injuries Lazo sustained in a fall while working on the Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge. Lazo alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), claiming inadequate safety devices. The Court of Claims initially denied Lazo's motion for summary judgment on liability. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the prior order, finding NYSTA liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to insufficient fall protection, while affirming the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim related to 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b).

construction accidentLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)summary judgmentliabilitysafety deviceselevation-related riskscaffoldpersonal injuryproximate cause
References
21
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07049 [188 AD3d 1182]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2020

Matter of Treyvone A. (Manuel R.)

This case involves an appeal by Manuel R. from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County, which found that he neglected the subject child, Treyvone A. The order placed the child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York. The Appellate Division, Second Department, agreed with the Family Court's finding that Manuel R. neglected the child by failing to provide adequate food and clothing. However, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's finding that Manuel R. neglected the child by using excessive corporal punishment, stating that the child's out-of-court statements lacked sufficient corroboration. Consequently, the order of disposition was modified by deleting the provision finding excessive corporal punishment, and as so modified, affirmed.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewCorporal PunishmentEvidentiary StandardsCorroboration RequirementDue ProcessEffective Assistance of CounselVacatur of OrderCPLR 5015
References
16
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00603 [135 AD3d 660]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2016

Matter of Nataysha O. (Manuel O.)

The Family Court, Bronx County, initially dismissed petitions alleging neglect against respondent Manuel O. for inflicting excessive corporal punishment on one child and derivatively neglecting two others. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed this decision. The court found, based on a preponderance of evidence including the child's statements and a photograph, that respondent intentionally burned his nearly four-year-old daughter with a cigarette. The respondent's testimony of an accidental injury was rejected as improbable. Consequently, the Appellate Division entered findings of neglect and derivative neglect against the respondent and remanded the case to the Family Court for a dispositional hearing.

NeglectCorporal PunishmentChild AbuseFamily LawAppellate ProcedureEvidenceCredibilityDerivative NeglectIntentional InjuryCigarette Burn
References
5
Case No. ADJ7813341
Regular
Jun 18, 2015

FRANCISCO LAZO vs. QUALITY STAFFING, ZURICH

This case concerns Francisco Lazo's workers' compensation claim against Quality Staffing and Zurich. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Lazo's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the petition being filed more than 20 days after the WCJ's decision was personally served. California law requires such petitions to be *received* by the WCAB within the 20-day timeframe, not merely mailed. As the petition was untimely, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to consider its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationPersonally ServedTimeliness20-Day LimitJurisdictionalWCJ DecisionWCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845(a)WCAB Rule 10392(a)
References
4
Case No. ADJ8876167
Regular
Sep 18, 2015

Manuel Ruiz vs. Schwan's Home Services, Inc., Hartford Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision. The defendant argued the ALJ erred by admitting a Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) reports and by ordering a second QME panel in internal medicine. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal, agreeing with the ALJ that the QME substantially complied with reporting deadlines and that an internal medicine evaluation was warranted due to the applicant's alleged stroke. Therefore, removal was deemed an inappropriate and extraordinary remedy.

RemovalPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelpsychology
References
2
Case No. 532221
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

In the Matter of the Claim of Manuel Ortiz

Manuel Ortiz appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. Ortiz, injured in 2009 and again in 2013, failed to disclose his prior injuries on forms and to medical examiners concerning his 2013 claim. The Board imposed mandatory and discretionary penalties, including disqualification from future indemnity benefits, which Ortiz challenged as disproportionate. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the finding of knowing material omissions was supported by substantial evidence and the penalty was not disproportionate given the repeated nature of the misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraudulent misrepresentationDisclosure violationIndemnity benefits disqualificationAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceCredibility determinationPrior work-related injuryMaterial fact omissionDiscretionary penalty
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Batista v. Chater

Plaintiff Manuel Batista challenged a final determination by the Commissioner of Social Security, which denied his applications for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income due to disability. District Judge Sotomayor denied both parties' motions for judgment on the pleadings, remanding the case for reconsideration. The court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed in several respects, including not fully developing the plaintiff's psychiatric record, misinterpreting medical expert testimony regarding psychiatric impairments, and failing to obtain complete medical histories from treating physicians. The decision emphasized the ALJ's heightened duty to develop the record for pro se claimants and the improper application of Medical-Vocational Guidelines when significant nonexertional impairments exist. Consequently, the case is remanded to the Commissioner for reconsideration consistent with this Opinion and Order.

Disability BenefitsSupplemental Security Income (SSI)Social Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeJudicial ReviewRemandPsychiatric ImpairmentDepressionAnxietyMedical Record Development
References
29
Case No. ADJ3305523 (ANA 0402420)
Regular
May 05, 2011

MANUEL ALCANTAR vs. ELIZABETH SYTTERS, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration in case ADJ3305523. The petitioner, Manuel Alcantar, withdrew his petition concerning the March 28, 2011 decision. This withdrawal effectively terminates the reconsideration process for that decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantsOrderDecisionService by Mail
References
0
Case No. ADJ4004427 (ANA 0408991)
Regular
Mar 07, 2013

MANUEL MEJIA vs. NATIONAL STEEL & SHIPBUILDING COMPANY (NASSCO)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Manuel Mejia's Petition for Reconsideration against National Steel & Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO). The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely and unverified, as detailed in the WCJ's Report and Recommendation. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning and would have denied the petition on its merits if it had been properly filed. The WCJ will address sanctions on remand.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyUnverifiedSanctionsRemandWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDismissedNational Steel & Shipbuilding CompanyNASSCO
References
0
Case No. ADJ7788009 ADJ7846220
Regular
Apr 06, 2015

MANUEL GAMEZ vs. THE ORIGINAL PANTRY, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Manuel Gamez seeking workers' compensation benefits. The Appeals Board dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration filed by a lien claimant. The dismissal was based on the petition being filed one day after the 20-day statutory deadline, calculated from the lien claimant's acknowledged receipt of the order on January 13, 2015. Despite potential issues with initial service of the order, the claimant's own admission of receipt established the filing deadline.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsJurisdictionalDefective ServiceActual ReceiptAppeals BoardWCJDismissal
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 134 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