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. ADJ7969168; ADJ9330687
Regular
Mar 23, 2016

Mario Alcantar vs. Alfredo Melchor, Zenith Insurance Company

This case involves applicant Mario Alcantar's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB previously rescinded a joint finding and substituted a new one finding applicant sustained a lumbar spine injury but not a cervical spine injury during specified employment periods. Alcantar sought reconsideration to include a cervical spine injury during a different, unspecified period. The WCAB denied the petition, affirming its prior decision and incorporating it by reference.

Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationJoint Findings of Factcumulative periodlumbar spinecervical spineindustrial injuryarising out of and occurring in the course of employmentWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardZenith Insurance Company
References
0
Case No. ADJ7969168, ADJ9330687
Regular
Oct 13, 2016

MARIO ALCANTAR vs. ALFREDO MELCHOR, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Mario Alcantar's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The WCAB adopted the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), who properly relied on the opinion of an agreed medical evaluator. The WCAB found no persuasive reason to reject the AME's opinion or the WCJ's credibility determination, which was given great weight due to the WCJ's observation of the witness. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ)Credibility DeterminationSubstantiality of EvidencePower v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Diaz v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
0
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04798
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2019

Matter of Mario WW. v. Kristin XX.

Mario WW. commenced a paternity proceeding seeking to be adjudicated the father of a child born to Kristin XX., who was married to Brad XX. The Family Court initially dismissed the petition, and the Appellate Division remitted for a determination on the child's best interests regarding genetic testing. Upon remittal, the Family Court again dismissed the petition, applying the presumption of legitimacy and equitable estoppel, finding that genetic testing was not in the child's best interests. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, emphasizing the child's best interests, the stable family dynamic, and the presumption of legitimacy. The court also upheld a stay-away order of protection against Mario WW. due to his hostile behavior towards the respondents.

Paternity DisputeGenetic TestingBest Interests of ChildPresumption of LegitimacyEquitable EstoppelFamily Court Act Article 5Appellate DivisionOrder of ProtectionChild CustodyMarital Presumption
References
19
Case No. No. 115
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2017

The People v. Mario Arjune

The case concerns Mario Arjune's writ of error coram nobis, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Arjune, an immigrant with cognitive limitations, was convicted of tampering with evidence and weapon possession. His trial counsel filed a notice of appeal but took no further action, leading to its dismissal. Arjune claimed he was unaware of his appellate rights and entitlement to poor person relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, finding Arjune failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance or due diligence, and declined to broaden exceptions to appeal deadlines.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselRight to AppealCoram NobisAppellate ProcedurePoor Person ReliefCognitive LimitationsDeportation ConsequencesTrial Counsel DutiesNotice of AppealDue Diligence
References
20
Case No. CV-24-1603
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of Mario Ayars

Claimant Mario Ayars appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding his right knee injury. The Board initially ruled an SLU award for a 20% SLU of the right leg, which was reversed and remitted by the Appellate Division due to an inaccurate assessment of medical opinions. Upon remittal, the Board again determined an SLU award was appropriate, specifically a 20% SLU for the right leg, and did not allow further submissions. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying further record development, crediting Dr. DiBenedetto's opinion, and finding the 20% SLU award supported by Dr. Touliopoulos's November 2020 report regarding range of motion.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Knee InjuryMedical Opinion DiscrepancyAppellate Division ReviewRemittal DecisionSubstantial Evidence StandardRange of Motion AssessmentMaximum Medical ImprovementBoard's Discretion
References
6
Case No. 534802
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Mario Ayars

Claimant Mario Ayars sustained a right knee injury in January 2017, leading to a workers' compensation claim where a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found a 66.67% schedule loss of use (SLU) of his right leg. Upon review, the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) reduced the SLU to 20%, asserting that the physicians' opinions were inconsistent with impairment guidelines and based on inapplicable special considerations. On appeal, the Appellate Division found the Board's decision could not be sustained because its assessment of the medical evidence, specifically concerning Dr. Thomas DiBenedetto's independent medical examination (IME) report, was inaccurate. The Board erroneously claimed DiBenedetto found 110 degrees of flexion and applied special considerations, whereas his report documented 90 degrees of flexion and no such considerations. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings, instructing the Board to accurately re-assess the medical evidence and determine anew the claim's amenability to classification or SLU, and the resulting degree of disability.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Knee InjuryMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewRemittalImpairment GuidelinesConflicting Medical OpinionsIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Factual Questions
References
14
Case No. ADJ8649665
Regular
Mar 03, 2016

DONALD ALCANTAR vs. TOYS R US, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Donald Alcantar concerning a workers' compensation claim against Toys R Us and Zurich Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition and the report from the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). For the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which the WCAB adopted and incorporated, the Board has denied Alcantar's petition for reconsideration. The order denying reconsideration was issued on March 3, 2016.

WCABDonald AlcantarToys R UsZurich Insurance CompanyADJ8649665Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportadministrative law judgeorder denying reconsiderationSan Francisco
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2001

Biganini v. Gallagher

Mario Biganini sought to review a determination by John C. Gallagher, Commissioner of the Suffolk County Police Department, which revoked his pistol license. The revocation was based on findings that Biganini lacked "good moral character" due to his membership and officer role in the Long Island chapter of the Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club. Evidence presented at the hearing linked Hell's Angels to criminal activities and indicated Biganini was not candid about his involvement. The court upheld the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious. Furthermore, the court ruled that the revocation did not violate Biganini's constitutional right to freedom of association.

Pistol license revocationGood moral characterHell's Angels Motorcycle ClubFreedom of associationPolice CommissionerAdministrative reviewSubstantial evidenceArbitrary and capriciousConstitutional rightsCPLR Article 78
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lancella v. Mario Genovesi & Sons, Inc.

The plaintiff, Louis M. Lancella, sustained personal injury after falling through an unprotected stairwell opening at a construction site in Mt. Kisco, New York. He was working on a mezzanine floor and maneuvering backward with a troweling machine when he fell approximately 10-12 feet to the floor below. He was not provided with any safety equipment or harness. The case examines whether the defendants violated various sections of the Labor Law, specifically sections 240, 241, and 241-a, which impose absolute liability. The court, referencing previous case law like Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, rejects arguments that Labor Law § 240 does not apply to floor openings. Consequently, the court grants the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, holding defendants Mario Genovesi & Sons, Inc. and Trinity Investment Properties, Inc. liable for damages under Labor Law § 240.

Construction Site AccidentLabor Law § 240Scaffolding and Other DevicesFloor Opening FallPersonal InjurySummary Judgment MotionAbsolute LiabilitySafety Equipment FailureElevated WorkProximate Cause
References
11
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
Showing 1-10 of 108 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