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. ADJ3593389 (VNO 0327097) ADJ1373027 (VNO 0327930) ADJ3316700 (VNO 0326839) ADJ4178443 (VNO 0326834) ADJ974570 (VNO 0326833)
Regular
Apr 25, 2019

MARIA YRIBE vs. U. S. SALES CORPORATION

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denies Maria Yribe's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not met here. The Board found that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final decision is adverse. Therefore, the petition is denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadministrative law judgeextraordinary remedyfinal decisionadverse to petitionerCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
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. 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
Case No. ADJ9056626
Regular
Apr 16, 2014

MARIA CALDERON, MARIA DELMI CALDERON vs. DANIEL TARVER, SUTTER INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Maria Calderon's workers' compensation claim for an injury sustained as a housekeeper. The applicant alleged a head injury when a glass table shattered, causing her to slip and fall on a patio. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the evidence did not support the finding of injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's credibility determination and finding of injury AOE/COE. The Board gave great weight to the ALJ's finding that the applicant was a credible witness despite minor discrepancies in the record.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeAOE/COECredibility FindingPetition DenialEmployer NegligenceMedical TreatmentHoly Cross Medical CenterOliveview Medical Center
References
4
Case No. ADJ7340845
Regular
Mar 05, 2012

MARIA INIGUEZ vs. PERKOS CAFÉ AND GRILL, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an applicant's claim. The applicant, Maria Iniguez, injured herself while working as a cook at Perkos Café and Grill. The Board upheld the judge's finding that Iniguez reported her injury to Maria Vargas, who was deemed a supervisor under Labor Code § 3600(a)(10), despite the employer's claims otherwise. The decision emphasized giving great weight to the judge's credibility findings regarding the witnesses.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilityGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Findings of Fact and Ordershift supervisorreporting injuryL.C. §3600(a)(10)supervisory personperson in charge
References
1
Case No. 535739
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Maria DiMeo

Claimant, an outpatient physical therapist aide, suffered a myocardial infarction after a stressful interaction with her supervisor. She filed a workers' compensation claim, asserting a work-related stress injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding no physical injury. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence and contradicted medical evidence that a myocardial infarction constitutes a physical injury. The court remitted the matter to the Board for further proceedings.

Myocardial InfarctionWork-Related StressCausationWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePhysical InjuryMedical EvidenceReversalRemittal
References
7
Case No. ADJ7861351
Regular
Sep 08, 2015

MARIA ZAVALA vs. KAISER PERMANENTE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Maria Zavala's Petition for Removal, finding that she failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The denial stems from the deferral of a decision on applicant's attorney's request for reimbursement of vocational expert costs. The Workers' Compensation Judge recommended denial, stating that the issue was deferred for judicial economy until the underlying claim is resolved, and this deferral does not cause substantial harm. The Board adopted the Judge's reasoning in its order.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportJudicial EconomyCosts ReimbursementVocational Rehabilitation ExpertDeclaration of Readiness
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 589 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