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. 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. ADJ10555511
Regular
Oct 03, 2018

MARIO GUDINO IBARRA vs. ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award, ruling that Truxtun Pharmacy failed to meet its burden of proof for reimbursement of its lien. The Board found that the pharmacy did not provide substantial medical evidence demonstrating the compound medications were reasonable and necessary under the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS). Specifically, the physician's report lacked necessary citations and the prescribed treatments were not recommended by the MTUS. Therefore, the lien claimant is entitled to no recovery on its lien.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardAshley Furniture IndustriesHartford Insurance CompanyGallagher Bassett ServicesMario Gudino IbarraTruxtun PharmacyMedical Treatment Utilization ScheduleMTUSOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleOMFS
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ibarra v. Equipment Control, Inc.

Roman Ibarra, an employee of Atlantic Waste Disposal, Inc., was injured by a bailing machine and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. He then commenced a negligence and product liability action against the manufacturer, Equipment Control, Inc. Equipment Control, Inc. initiated a third-party action for contribution and indemnification against Atlantic and Empire State Recycling Corporation. Atlantic moved for summary judgment, asserting that the 1996 amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 restricted its liability for contribution to cases involving a 'grave injury,' which it argued Ibarra had not sustained. The Supreme Court denied Atlantic's motion, but the appellate court reversed, finding the amended statute applicable, placing the burden of proving 'grave injury' on the third party, and concluding that Ibarra's loss of vision in one eye did not meet the statutory definition of a 'grave injury.' Consequently, all claims and cross claims against Atlantic were dismissed.

Workers' Compensation LawContribution and IndemnificationGrave InjuryStatutory InterpretationProspective ApplicationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird-Party ClaimsEmployer LiabilityPersonal Injury
References
12
Case No. ADJ8004147, ADJ8004039
Regular
Jul 25, 2016

NOE GUDINO vs. JUAN NAVARRO dba NAVARRO'S TREE SERVICE, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case concerns applicant Noe Gudino's petition for reconsideration of two adverse Findings of Fact and Orders denying claims for cumulative and specific work injuries. Although Gudino's claims were initially presumed compensable under Labor Code section 5402, the defendant successfully rebutted this presumption. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding that any alleged evidentiary errors were invited by the applicant, and affording significant weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determinations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNoe GudinoJuan NavarroUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundFindings of Fact and OrdersCumulative InjurySpecific InjuryAOE/COELabor Code Section 5402Presumption of Compensability
References
3
Case No. ADJ8279007
Regular
Jun 01, 2015

CARLOS IBARRA vs. COOPER INTERCONNECT, ESIS

In Case No. ADJ8279007, the Applicant, Carlos Ibarra, had filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a decision issued on March 12, 2015. However, the petitioner subsequently withdrew this petition. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing the Petition for Reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantCase NumberDistrict Office
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
Showing 1-10 of 122 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