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. 2024 NY Slip Op 04334 [230 AD3d 811]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2024

Ramirez v. Pace Univ.

The plaintiff, Jonathan Ramirez, suffered personal injuries after falling from a scaffold during a construction project at Pace University, which had contracted with NYCAN Builders, LLC to manage the project. Ramirez sued both Pace University and NYCAN Builders, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted Ramirez's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of an elevation-related hazard and proximate cause, and the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact or demonstrate that the motion was premature. The court also held NYCAN Builders, LLC liable as a statutory agent under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentConstruction SiteLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment MotionAppellate DivisionElevation-Related HazardProximate CauseStatutory Agent LiabilityNondelegable Duty
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. Rifkin

Plaintiff Reina Ramirez brought an action against Terry and Leah Rifkin alleging failure to pay wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law (NYLL). Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred and that plaintiff did not perform overtime work. The court denied summary judgment on the FLSA overtime claims and state law claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the statute of limitations, willfulness, and equitable tolling, as well as the amount of time plaintiff worked. However, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on federal and state minimum wage claims from mid-2003 to December 8, 2005, based on the plaintiff's concession.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York State Labor LawSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingOvertime PayMinimum WageDomestic WorkerEmployment LawRecord Keeping
References
43
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00901
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

Matter of Ramirez v. Echevarria

Sarah Ramirez, on behalf of Garrison Echevarria, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that ruled Keamesha Echevarria was entitled to death benefits as the surviving spouse of the deceased Gregory Echevarria. The appeal also challenged the denial of an application for reconsideration by the decedent's fiancée. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's finding that Keamesha Echevarria had not abandoned the decedent, thus qualifying her as a legal spouse for workers' compensation death benefits. The Court found substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion, as the elements required to establish abandonment were not met. Additionally, the Court upheld the denial of the reconsideration application, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsSurviving SpouseDeath BenefitsAbandonmentDomestic Relations LawAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationReconsideration ApplicationCredibility DeterminationSubstantial Evidence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeLeon v. Ramirez

Plaintiffs, migrant workers, sued G & G Produce Dealers, Inc. and Stanley Gurda for violating the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act (FLCRA) by engaging Modesto Ramirez as an unregistered farm labor contractor in 1976. The defendants failed to ensure Ramirez possessed a valid certificate of registration, as required by law. The court found that Ramirez's activities, including recruiting, soliciting, hiring, furnishing, and transporting migrant workers for a fee, clearly established him as a farm labor contractor under the Act. Despite defendants' claims, evidence showed they engaged and ratified Ramirez's services, including co-signing his application and deducting transportation costs from workers' wages. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, holding G & G Produce and Gurda jointly and severally liable for an intentional violation of the FLCRA and awarding liquidated damages of $500 to each of the 13 plaintiffs, totaling $6,500.

Farm Labor Contractor Registration ActFLCRAMigrant WorkersSummary JudgmentUnregistered ContractorLiquidated DamagesJoint and Several LiabilityEmployer ResponsibilityWorker TransportationRecruitment
References
15
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00021
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 2019

Ramirez v. Elias-Tejada

This consolidated appeal arises from a three-car collision on December 12, 2011, involving a stalled car carrying Fairway employees that was struck by two other vehicles. Plaintiffs, including Pilar Ramirez, Yedmy Batista Peralta, and Delio Polanco (on behalf of his deceased wife), sought damages. Key issues involved the application of the relation back doctrine to add Fairway entities as defendants, the assertion of a Workers' Compensation Law defense, and motions for summary judgment regarding negligence and serious injury. The Appellate Division reviewed several Supreme Court orders, resulting in a mixed decision that reversed in part, affirmed in part, modified in part, and granted in part.

Car accidentThree-car collisionRespondeat superiorWorkers' Compensation LawRelation back doctrineSummary judgmentVicarious liabilityStatute of limitationsPleading errorAmended complaint
References
11
Case No. ADJ8564064, ADJ8564068
Regular
Dec 18, 2014

MARIA RAMIREZ vs. PRIORITY BUSINESS SERVICES, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves applicant Maria Ramirez's petition for removal, seeking to undo a notation on a Minute Order from a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC). Ramirez alleged irreparable harm from an order compelling her to attend a Qualified Medical Evaluation (QME) despite an agreement to use an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME). The Board denied the petition, finding no evidence that the WCJ ordered a PQME or that Ramirez requested an AME examination with the proposed evaluator. The WCJ correctly took the cases off calendar due to the defendant's timely objection to Ramirez's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed, which relied on a deceased AME's report.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorOff CalendarIrreparable HarmSubstantial PrejudiceWCJ OrderMinutes of Hearing
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. Pride Development & Construction Corp.

Plaintiff Orfelindo Cordero Ramirez filed an in limine motion seeking to preclude testimony from a witness for third-party defendant Muna Contracting Corporation. The motion arose from a personal injury action where Muna's failure to maintain employee records hindered Ramirez's ability to identify crucial witnesses to his alleged accident. United States Magistrate Judge James Orenstein recommended denying the preclusion request but suggested an alternative remedy: instructing the jury that it may draw an adverse inference against Muna due to its misconduct. District Judge Ross reviewed the Report and Recommendation, found no clear error, and adopted it in its entirety. Consequently, Ramirez's motion to preclude was denied, but the court will instruct the jury to consider an adverse inference against Muna.

In Limine MotionAdverse InferenceSpoliationDiscovery SanctionsRule 37New York Labor LawEmployee RecordsWitness PreclusionMagistrate JudgeReport and Recommendation
References
14
Case No. ADJ10721050
Regular
Aug 17, 2017

Ana Ramirez vs. Stanley Chan, Employers Compensation Insurance

The applicant, Ana Ramirez, sought reconsideration of a Stipulation and Award and Order (SAO) that resolved her Labor Code section 132a claim for \$4,000 minus attorney fees, with wage and hour claims unresolved. Ramirez claimed a lack of English proficiency and employer misrepresentations as grounds for her petition. However, at a subsequent hearing with an interpreter, Ramirez withdrew her Petition for Reconsideration, which was acknowledged by her signature on the Minutes of Hearing. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

Stipulation and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 132aDismissal with prejudiceWage and hour benefitsProficient in EnglishInterpreterMinutes of HearingWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ7702057
Regular
Sep 11, 2012

Salome Ramirez vs. Holiday Inn Express, Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency, Benchmark Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Salome Ramirez's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) finding that she failed to prove her alleged injuries arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. The ALJ found inconsistencies in Ramirez's testimony regarding the date of injury and the circumstances of the incident, particularly concerning elevator functionality and the necessity of using stairs for linen transport. Furthermore, the ALJ deemed the defense witnesses credible and found the employer's incident report admissible, concluding that Ramirez did not meet her burden of proof.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.ApplicantHoliday Inn ExpressIllinois Midwest Insurance AgencyBenchmark Insurance CompanyADJ7702057Housekeeper
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co.

Anthony Ramirez was killed in an accident while working for Leisure Pool Service, leading his estate and property owner Samuel Hillman to sue his employers for wrongful death. Hillman subsequently cross-claimed against the employers for indemnification and contribution. USF&G, the employers' insurer, disclaimed coverage for Hillman's cross-claim based on an employee bodily injury exclusion in their general liability policy. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment for USF&G, upholding the exclusion. On appeal, the court dismissed Ramirez's appeal, modified Hillman's appeal by explicitly declaring the exclusion applied, and affirmed the judgment, finding the policy's exclusionary language clear and unambiguous regarding employee injuries and related contribution claims.

Insurance policyDeclaratory judgmentSummary judgmentEmployee exclusionBodily injuryContributionIndemnificationAppellate reviewPolicy interpretationAmbiguity
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 173 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