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. 2020 NY Slip Op 02513 [182 AD3d 954]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Matter of Colon (Pd 10276, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Nicanor Colon filed for unemployment insurance benefits after ceasing operation of his cleaning business, leading the Department of Labor to assess PD 10276, Inc., doing business as Jan-Pro Cleaning Systems of the Hudson Valley, for additional unemployment insurance contributions. An Administrative Law Judge initially ruled Colon an independent contractor, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed this decision, finding Colon and similarly situated individuals to be employees. PD 10276, Inc. appealed the Board's decision to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that there was substantial evidence of an employment relationship based on the indicia of control exercised by Jan-Pro Cleaning over its unit franchisees, similar to findings in prior cases like Matter of Baez. The court highlighted requirements like certification, provision of supplies, periodic inspections, and noncompetition clauses as supporting the Board's conclusion.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent Contractor StatusEmployment RelationshipFranchise AgreementAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceJan-Pro Cleaning SystemsDepartment of LaborUnit FranchiseesLabor Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2000

Ramnarine v. Memorial Center for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jagdeo Ramnarine, an employee of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, suffered a laceration at the Memorial Center for Cancer and Allied Diseases. He subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit. The defendant, Memorial Center, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as both the Center and the Hospital operate as a single integrated employer despite their separate legal entities. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant. The court found substantial evidence supporting the integrated employer argument, thereby limiting the plaintiff's remedy to workers' compensation benefits and dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against the defendant.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityIntegrated Employer DoctrineSummary Judgment ReversalNegligence ClaimCross Claims DismissedCorporate Alter EgoCommon ControlBronx CountyAppellate DivisionLabor Law
References
11
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02445 [237 AD3d 1500]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2025

Matter of Cooper (Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Ctr.)

This case involves an appeal from an order that vacated an arbitration award concerning the termination of a registered nurse, Wendy Cooper, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center. Cooper was terminated for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which was later declared null and void in an unrelated case. The arbitrator, however, upheld Cooper's termination based on the collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court vacated the arbitration award, reinstating Cooper, finding it irrational and against public policy. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, confirming the arbitration award. It held that the Supreme Court erred in vacating the award, as petitioners failed to prove it violated a strong public policy or was irrational under CPLR 7511 (b), reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review for arbitration awards.

Arbitration AwardVacaturPublic PolicyIrrationalityCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewJudicial Review Limitation
References
9
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06420 [222 AD3d 1141]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

Matter of Colon (Geneva Worldwide Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed two decisions by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board found that Geneva Worldwide Inc., a provider of language services, was liable for unemployment insurance contributions for Misael Colon and other linguists, determining they were employees, not independent contractors. The court reiterated that the "touchstone" for establishing an employment relationship is the employer's control over the worker's results or means of achieving them. Geneva's practices, including screening, setting pay rates, assigning work, and handling client complaints, provided substantial evidence to support the Board's finding of an employment relationship, despite arguments for a contrary conclusion.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorLinguistInterpreterControl TestAppellate ReviewLabor LawAgency ControlWage and Hour
References
8
Case No. Index No. 161136/17 Appeal No. 15141 Case No. 2021-02236
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2022

Quiroz v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jose Alfonso Perez Quiroz, a construction worker, sustained injuries after falling from an unstable scaffold at a site managed by Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases and general contractor Turner Construction Company. He initiated legal action under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting Quiroz's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), finding the unsecured scaffold to be a proximate cause of his fall. The appellate court subsequently dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim as academic.

Construction AccidentScaffold FallLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment AppealPlaintiff LiabilityDefendant LiabilityProximate CausationRecalcitrant Worker Defense
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colon v. Fashion Institute of Technology

This case involves plaintiffs Genette Colon and Elvimar Rivas, who sued their former employer, the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), and several individual defendants, alleging racial and pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, and FMLA violations. Colon brought claims for FMLA interference and retaliation, and discriminatory treatment and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Rivas filed claims for pregnancy discrimination, discriminatory discharge, and hostile work environment under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court, presided over by Judge Harold Baer, Jr., granted summary judgment in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court denied summary judgment on Colon's FMLA interference and retaliation claims and Rivas's NYCHRL pregnancy discrimination and discharge claims, finding material issues of fact. However, summary judgment was granted for defendants on Colon's § 1981 discriminatory treatment and retaliation claims, and Rivas's § 1981 and NYCHRL hostile work environment claims, concluding these claims lacked sufficient evidence of adverse action or discriminatory intent.

Race DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationFMLA InterferenceFMLA RetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentWrongful TerminationEmployment Law42 U.S.C. 1981NYCHRL
References
46
Case No. ADJ8611839
Regular
Sep 07, 2016

NATALIE CLAYTON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR PAROLE & COMMUNITY SERVICES, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

This case addresses a claim for industrial colon cancer and hypertension. The Appeals Board denied the Department of Justice's petition for reconsideration, finding their arguments regarding latency periods were unsupported. However, the Board granted the CDCR's petition, overturning the prior finding of industrial causation for colon cancer against the CDCR. This was based on the conclusion that the applicant did not meet her burden of proof for CDCR employment absent the statutory presumption.

Labor Code 3212.1cumulative traumacolon cancerhypertensionpolice officerspecial agentparole officerSan Diego Police DepartmentDepartment of JusticeDepartment of Corrections and Rehabilitation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maiorana v. National Gypsum Co.

Plaintiff Arlene Maiorana sued defendants alleging her husband's colon cancer was caused by asbestos exposure. A jury initially found in her favor, awarding $4,510,000. Defendants, including United States Mineral Product Company (USMP), subsequently filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur. The court granted the motions for judgment as a matter of law, concluding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient scientific evidence (epidemiological, experimental, and clinical) to establish a causal link between asbestos exposure and colon cancer under the 'more likely than not' standard. The court also conditionally granted remittitur for excessive damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium, and denied motions for indemnification by contractors Tishman and Castagna.

Asbestos ExposureColon CancerProximate CauseScientific EvidenceEpidemiologyToxic TortDaubert StandardJudgment as a Matter of LawPost-Trial MotionsRemittitur
References
107
Case No. 88 Civ. 3317
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Joint Eastern & Southern District Asbestos Litigation

Arlene Maiorana, widow of John Maiorana, sued several asbestos manufacturers, alleging her husband's colon cancer was caused by asbestos exposure during his career. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Maiorana couldn't prove asbestos caused the colon cancer. The court discussed the standard for summary judgment and the role of epidemiological data, stating that a plaintiff needs to show a relative risk greater than 2.0 for causation without direct evidence. Maiorana failed to present sufficient admissible epidemiological evidence or expert testimony to meet this standard. Additionally, her medical experts' opinions were found inadmissible due to insufficient expertise or unsupported underlying assumptions regarding Mr. Maiorana's medical history. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

Asbestos LitigationColon CancerSummary JudgmentCausationEpidemiological EvidenceRelative RiskMedical Expert TestimonyProduct LiabilityFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)Federal Rule of Evidence 702
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Valenti v. Penn Plax Plastics

The claimant, exposed to asbestos between 1965 and 1972, developed asbestosis, asbestos-related pleural disease, and lung cancer. His 1995 workers' compensation claim was denied by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board, which found his lung cancer causally related to asbestos exposure occurring before July 1, 1974, thus falling under the 'dust disease' rule requiring total disability for compensation. The claimant appealed, arguing lung cancer is not a dust disease. The appellate court reversed and remitted the decision, clarifying that while lung cancer itself is not a dust disease, the pre-1974 restriction applies if it's causally related to a dust disease like asbestosis. The court noted the Board failed to make a specific finding on this causal link.

asbestos exposurelung cancerasbestosisworkers' compensationdust diseasetotal disabilitypartial disabilitycausationremittalappellate review
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 238 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