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. ADJ6766619 (MF) ADJ6766620
Regular
Feb 28, 2018

MARIA DURAN vs. FOREVER 21 RETAIL, INC., CHUBB GROUP

This case involves Maria Duran's request for home health care services, which was initially denied by utilization review (UR) and upheld by Independent Medical Review (IMR). The applicant argued that her need for assistance with household chores and personal hygiene fell outside the scope of the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) guidelines as applied. While the Board acknowledges that the specific MTUS guideline used in this case was later found to be an invalid regulation in a related case, it affirmed the original decision. This affirmance was based on the finding that the initial request for services was too vague, lacking specific details on the type, frequency, and duration of care, and that a revised request could be made.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria DuranForever 21 RetailInc.Chubb GroupOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationIndependent Medical ReviewIMRUtilization ReviewUR
References
9
Case No. ADJ8001796
Regular
Jun 03, 2014

MARIA DURAN vs. J RODRIGUEZ FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, ALMA J RODRIGUEZ, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, ADJ8001796, involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant Maria Duran. The Board dismissed the petition as untimely. The applicant failed to file within the mandatory 25-day period, which includes the standard 20 days for reconsideration plus 5 additional days for mailing. Therefore, the Board adopted the administrative law judge's report and ordered the petition dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013WCJ Report and RecommendationDismissalStockton District OfficeFarm Labor ContractorZenith Insurance Company
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duran v. Jamaica Hospital

Plaintiff Maria Duran commenced an action against Jamaica Hospital and Joseph DeToma, alleging negligence, slander, and wrongful termination. Duran claimed harassment, false accusations of theft by DeToma, and subsequent termination without due process. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims, and the court converted the wrongful termination claim into a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the negligence claim, ruling it was barred by New York Workers’ Compensation Law. The slander claim was also dismissed as time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The wrongful termination claim was granted on summary judgment, with the court finding it preempted by federal labor law or, alternatively, time-barred by a six-month statute of limitations. All of Plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

Title VIICivil Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationNegligenceSlanderWrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation LawStatute of LimitationsPreemptionLabor Management Relations Act
References
27
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07708 [155 AD3d 690]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2017

Duran v. Temple Beth Sholom, Inc.

Luis Duran was injured during demolition work at Temple Beth Sholom, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The initial jury verdict favored the temple, but the plaintiffs moved to set it aside, a motion denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the judgment, finding a fundamental error in the trial court's jury instructions. The error was the denial of a specific interrogatory regarding whether Duran fell from a beam, given conflicting evidence on the accident's cause. Consequently, the matter was remitted for a new trial on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Temple Beth Sholom, Inc.

Personal InjuryDemolition AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Jury VerdictNew TrialAppellate ReviewContradictory EvidenceInterpreter UseConstruction Site SafetyProximate Cause
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Maria A.

This case involves an appeal from an order of disposition by the Family Court, Kings County, dated April 19, 1979, which found appellant Maria to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her with the Division for Youth, Title III, for 18 months. Maria argued that her placement was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that less coercive alternatives were not considered. The delinquency finding stemmed from Maria's admission to acts constituting second-degree robbery and second-degree manslaughter. At the dispositional hearing, conflicting expert opinions were presented regarding the appropriate placement, with court-appointed experts favoring a more secure facility due to concerns about Maria's impulse control, while appellant's experts suggested an open residential setting. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding no basis for reversal after balancing the child's needs and community protection.

Juvenile DelinquencyFamily CourtOrder of DispositionPlacementDivision for YouthRobberyManslaughterPreponderance of EvidenceDispositional HearingResidential Facility
References
1
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03246 [238 AD3d 665]
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

Duran v. ERY Retail Podium LLC

The case involves an appeal concerning a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The plaintiff, Luis Duran, established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by testifying that he fell from an unsecured 12-foot A-frame ladder that wobbled, causing him to miss a step. The defendants failed to raise an issue of fact, as their arguments regarding inconsistent out-of-court statements were found not to contradict the plaintiff's deposition testimony or C-3 form. The court also rejected the defendants' argument that the plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker, reiterating that a plaintiff's own negligence is not a defense to absolute liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court's order granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denying the defendants' motion was unanimously affirmed.

Fall from heightUnsecured A-frame ladderSummary judgmentAbsolute liabilityRecalcitrant worker defenseComparative negligenceAppellate Division First DepartmentLabor Law violationWorker's compensation C-3 formDeposition testimony
References
8
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. 2018 NY Slip Op 08980
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2018

Matter of Ricci v. Maria Regina Residence

This case involves an appeal by the Special Disability Fund from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board had ruled that the workers' compensation carrier for Maria Regina Residence was entitled to reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for a claim related to Cyndia Ricci's work-related knee injury, asserting Ricci had pre-existing heart and arthritis conditions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the record lacked substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that Ricci's preexisting conditions hindered her employment potential. The court concluded that the medical opinion relied upon was based on generalities and speculation, and that conditions controlled by medication do not, without more, constitute a hindrance to employability. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting ImpairmentEmployabilityMaterially and Substantially Greater DisabilityMedical OpinionOrthopedic SurgeonAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. 532851
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Maria Fierro-Switzer (William Switzer, Dec'd)

Claimant Maria Fierro-Switzer appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that disallowed her claim for death benefits. Her deceased spouse, William Switzer, a retired New York City firefighter, volunteered at Ground Zero after the September 2001 terrorist attacks and later died from metastatic kidney cancer. Claimant alleged that his death was caused by toxic exposure during his volunteer work. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Board disallowed the claim, finding that Article 8-A of the Workers' Compensation Law, which covers volunteers in World Trade Center rescue efforts, requires the participant to file a WTC-12 registration form during their lifetime. As the decedent did not file this form, the claim under Article 8-A was denied. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that despite the independence of a death benefits claim from the decedent's potential compensation claim, there must be a legal basis for the claim and an entity upon which liability may be imposed. Since the decedent was a volunteer at the time of exposure, no claim could lie under Workers' Compensation Law § 16, which requires injuries to arise out of and in the course of employment. The decedent's sole potential avenue for recovery would have been under Article 8-A, which was precluded by the failure to file the required WTC-12 form during his lifetime.

World Trade Center9/11 AttacksGround ZeroVolunteer BenefitsDeath Benefits ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law Article 8-AWTC-12 Registration FormToxic ExposureRenal Cell CarcinomaAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2014

In re Maria S.

This case concerns a motion filed by the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) to quash a subpoena from respondent Ramon R., seeking records from a 2007 investigation into his household, which was previously deemed unfounded. Ramon R. is currently facing allegations of sexual offenses against Maria S. in a Family Court Act article 10 proceeding. The court determined that the 2007 investigative materials are relevant to the current allegations, especially regarding Maria S.’s interactions with Ramon R. Despite Social Services Law § 422(5)(a) mandating the sealing of unfounded reports, the court ruled that other investigative documents are not subject to this sealing provision. Consequently, the motion to quash was granted in part and denied in part, ordering ACS to release all documents from the 2007 investigation, excluding the oral report transmittal, after an in camera review.

SubpoenaChild Protective ServicesFamily LawRecord DisclosureConfidentialityUnfounded ReportsIn Camera ReviewSocial Services LawFamily Court ActChild Abuse Allegations
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 615 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