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 01046 [169 AD3d 747]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2019

Barrios v. 19-19 24th Ave. Co., LLC

The plaintiff, Sergio Barrios, sustained personal injuries when a differential block and chain fell on his head while preparing a hoisting apparatus at the defendants' premises. He sued 19-19 24th Avenue Company, LLC, et al., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied both parties' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order. It granted the plaintiff summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the repair work fell under its purview. It also granted the defendants summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, ruling that the plaintiff's work did not constitute construction, demolition, or excavation.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffolding LawGravity HazardSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRepair WorkHoisting ApparatusWorkplace SafetyStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Case No. 2016-3058 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2018

Johnson v. Hartford Ins. Co.

Hubert I. Johnson appealed an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which denied his motion to vacate a prior order entered May 19, 2015. The May 19, 2015 order had granted Hartford Insurance Company's motion to vacate a default judgment against it and dismissed Johnson's complaint with prejudice, after Johnson failed to oppose the motion. Johnson's current action sought the same sum and was based on the same claim as a previous, discontinued action. The Appellate Term affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that Johnson failed to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious cause of action. The court also noted that Johnson's current claim was precluded by res judicata, as it was identical to a claim already asserted and dismissed in a prior action.

Default JudgmentVacate OrderRes JudicataAppellate ReviewCivil CourtMotion to DismissWorkers' Compensation ClaimPro Se AppellantStipulationPrior Action Dismissal
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06316
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2020

People v. May

The case concerns an appeal by Nicholas A. May from a judgment convicting him of predatory sexual assault against a child and course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree. The charges arose from allegations that May sexually abused an underage victim over several years. May challenged the verdict's legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence, the admissibility of expert testimony concerning child sexual abuse, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the County Court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence, appropriate expert testimony from a nurse practitioner and a licensed clinical social worker, and meaningful representation by trial counsel, despite the defense's arguments regarding the victim's credibility and lack of corroboration. The court noted that the issues raised by the defense were adequately explored during the trial.

Child sexual abusePredatory sexual assaultCourse of sexual conductExpert witness testimonyIneffective assistance of counselAppellate reviewJury verdictVictim credibilityChild abuse accommodation syndromeCriminal law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayes v. Local 106, International Union of Operating Engineers

The case involves plaintiff George A. Mayes suing Local 106, International Union of Operating Engineers, and its officers for alleged discrimination in job referrals and denial of rights under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). The defendants counterclaimed, seeking expenses incurred from Mayes' "baseless charges" against union members James Tommaney and Dan Lewis, citing violations of the Union's constitution and state law tort and breach of contract claims. Mayes moved for summary judgment, arguing good faith in filing charges under LMRDA and lack of court jurisdiction over the counterclaims. The court found material factual disputes regarding Mayes' motives, asserting jurisdiction over the counterclaims under 29 U.S.C. § 185. It also determined that the tort and breach of contract claims were sufficiently pleaded, thereby denying Mayes' motion for summary judgment and allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

Labour LawUnion DisputeSummary JudgmentCounterclaimsLMRDAFree SpeechUnion ConstitutionJurisdictionTort ClaimsBreach of Contract
References
13
Case No. ADJ9198799
Regular
Sep 19, 2015

MARY GOMEZ vs. KAISER PERMANENTE; Permissibly SelfInsured, Administered by SEDGWICK CMS

Here's a summary for a lawyer in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has issued an Order Dismissing a Petition for Removal in the case of Mary Gomez v. Kaiser Permanente. The petitioner, having withdrawn their July 1, 2015 decision, has caused the WCAB to dismiss the removal petition. This action resolves the removal attempt as requested by the petitioner. The order was filed and served on May 19, 2015.

Petition for RemovalDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardKaiser PermanenteSedgwick CMSwithdrawn petitionADJ9198799Albert and MackenzieEmployment Development Dept.Law Offices of John G. Kiwan
References
0
Case No. ADJ2818792 (MON 0312453) ADJ832261 (MON 0341441) ADJ4192657 (MON 0327492) ADJ229486 (MON 0333529) ADJ309456 (MON 0334315) ADJ2984620 (MON 0312452)
Regular
Jun 14, 2015

KAY BRAND vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Kay Brand's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be filed within 25 days of service by mail, with specific rules for extensions on weekends and holidays. Crucially, the petition must be *received* by the Board within this timeframe, not merely mailed. As Brand's petition was filed on June 19, 2015, more than 25 days after the May 21, 2015 decision, it was dismissed as untimely.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationuntimelydismissedjurisdictionalWCJservice by mailCalifornia Code of RegulationsLabor Codeadministrative law judge
References
4
Case No. ADJ9271759
Regular
Jun 10, 2015

JIMMIE HARTMAN vs. TOWN OF SCOTIA COMPANY PACIFIC LUMBER

This case involves a clerical error in the date of service for a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board's May 10, 2015 decision incorrectly listed the service date as May 10, 2015. The Board has corrected this clerical error to reflect the accurate service date of June 10, 2015. This correction was made without granting reconsideration, as such errors can be corrected at any time.

Clerical errorDate of serviceCorrectionAppeals BoardReconsiderationSupplemental ProceedingsOrder Denying PetitionAmended dateWorkers' CompensationTown of Scotia
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees v. May Department Stores Co.

The plaintiffs, Union of Needle-trades, Industrial and Textile Workers (UNITE) and others, sued May Department Stores Company (May) alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC rules related to proxy solicitations. UNITE sought relief claiming May improperly exercised discretionary voting authority and made false or misleading statements in its proxy materials concerning an 'anti-poison pill proposal'. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity. The court granted May's motion, concluding that May lawfully exercised its discretionary authority under SEC Rule 14a-4(c)(1) and that UNITE failed to allege any actionable false or misleading statements under SEC Rule 14a-9. The complaint was dismissed.

Securities LawProxy SolicitationShareholder RightsMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Discretionary AuthorityMisleading StatementsSecurities Exchange ActSEC Rules
References
33
Case No. ADJ8877250, ADJ8877252
Regular
Nov 25, 2015

Tomas Espinoza vs. SBEEG HOLDINGS, LLC, NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST

This case involves applicant Tomas Espinoza's petition for reconsideration after his workers' compensation cases were dismissed without prejudice. The dismissal stemmed from his failure to appear at a mandatory settlement conference on May 4, 2015. Espinoza argued good cause existed for his non-appearance, presenting a nearly illegible doctor's note dated September 14, 2015. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding the provided documentation did not explain his absence at the crucial May 4th hearing. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that the illegible note did not establish good cause for the initial failure to appear.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeMandatory Settlement ConferenceFailure to AppearDismissal Without PrejudiceGood CauseMedical ReasonsDoctor's NoteIllegible Document
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02210
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2021

Matter of Osorio v. Tvi Inc.

Claimant, a pricing clerk, filed for workers' compensation benefits alleging neck, back, and arm injuries from repetitive work for TVI Inc. The Workers' Compensation Board found she sustained a causally-related occupational disease and set the date of disablement as May 21, 2015, affirming a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending the claim was time-barred and that claimant failed to provide timely notice of her occupational disease, arguing that earlier symptoms indicated an earlier knowledge of the work-related condition. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing the Board's broad discretion in setting the date of disablement. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that claimant did not know or should not have known her condition was work-related prior to the physician's diagnosis on May 21, 2015, thus confirming the timeliness of the claim and notice. The denial of the application for reconsideration and/or full Board review by the carrier was also affirmed, as no new evidence or material change in condition was demonstrated.

Occupational diseaseRepetitive stress injuryWorkers' compensation benefitsDate of disablementTimeliness of claimNotice of occupational diseaseCervical spine injuryShoulder impingementTendonitisAppellate review
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 2,032 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