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 00977 [180 AD3d 466]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2020

People v. Cueva

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgment convicting defendant Wilmer Cueva of criminally negligent homicide and reckless endangerment. Cueva, a construction foreman, was found to have personally ordered unsafe actions resulting in a fatal trench collapse. The court rejected the defendant's unpreserved legal insufficiency claim and found the verdict supported by overwhelming evidence. Furthermore, the court found no error in the jury instructions, the admission of gruesome autopsy photos, or the denial of defendant's motion to suppress his statements.

criminally negligent homicidereckless endangermenttrench collapse fatalityconstruction safety violationsforeman liabilityappellate affirmationsufficiency of evidencejury instruction reviewautopsy photo admissibilitysuppression motion
References
5
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05905
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2018

Cuevas v. Baruti Constr. Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed two orders from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, relating to a construction accident case. Plaintiff Gidar Manuel Cuevas was injured while attempting to lower a heavy roof cutting machine from a building's roof without adequate safety devices, specifically a hoist. The Supreme Court had granted Cuevas partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and quashed a nonparty subpoena. Defendant Baruti Construction Corp. appealed, citing a coworker's affidavit, but the Appellate Division found the coworker's statements consistent and the accident clearly related to an elevation risk, thus upholding the lower court's decisions.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentElevation-Related RiskSafety DevicesAppellate ReviewWitness TestimonyAffidavit ConsistencyProximate CauseSubpoena Quash
References
12
Case No. CV-23-2242
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Miguel Juncal

Claimant Miguel Juncal suffered physical injuries from a fall at work in November 2021 and was awarded temporary total disability benefits. The employer and its carrier, Maspeth Remodeling Co. et al., appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied their request to retroactively reduce Juncal's benefits. The carrier sought a reduction based on an independent medical examination from August 2022, arguing that the reduction should be effective from the IME date or the RFA-2 filing date. The Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, holding that benefits should continue at the temporary total disability rate until the March 2023 hearing, interpreting 12 NYCRR 300.23 (b) (2) as directory rather than mandatory regarding the 20-day hearing timeframe. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Disability BenefitsBenefit ReductionIndependent Medical ExaminationPsychiatric InjuriesOrthopedic InjuriesAdministrative LawRegulatory InterpretationAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
5
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Workers' Compensation Board v. Met-Impro Services, Inc.

This case involves four related actions under Workers' Compensation Law § 26 concerning the enforcement of a Workers' Compensation award. The Supreme Court had erroneously granted defendant Robert San Miguel's motion to vacate judgments against him. San Miguel, identified as the president of the corporate employers, was held personally liable for unpaid benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 26-a (1) (a). The court clarified that personal liability for corporate officers does not depend on active management or involvement in the underlying accident. Furthermore, there is no statutory basis to vacate a judgment merely because an officer was not specifically named in the initial administrative determination. Consequently, San Miguel's vague denial of involvement was insufficient, and his motion to vacate the judgments against him was denied.

Workers' CompensationPersonal LiabilityCorporate OfficerJudgment VacationAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityUnpaid BenefitsNew York Law
References
3
Case No. 93
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Francisca Garcia

Francisca Garcia, spouse of deceased volunteer Miguel Garcia, filed a death benefits claim more than two years after his death in July 2016. Miguel Garcia had received lifetime benefits for health conditions contracted while volunteering in the 9/11 World Trade Center recovery efforts. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) and Appellate Division disallowed the claim as untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, which sets a two-year statute of limitations for death benefits. The central legal question was whether Workers' Compensation Law § 168, which extends filing periods for 'participants' in WTC recovery, applies to claims by survivors. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that § 168's language, referring explicitly to 'a claim by a participant,' does not extend to claims made by beneficiaries, thus the claim remains barred by § 28.

Death Benefits ClaimWTC Volunteer9/11 Recovery WorkersStatute of Limitations ExtensionWorkers' Compensation Law Article 8-ASurvivor's Claim TimelinessParticipant DefinitionLegislative Intent InterpretationUntimely Filing DisallowanceAppellate Division Affirmation
References
3
Case No. ADJ9170309
Regular
Nov 03, 2025

Miguel Mosqueda vs. City of Clearlake

Applicant Miguel Mosqueda sought reconsideration of a July 25, 2025 decision which found his injuries were not caused by the employer's serious and willful misconduct or violation of safety orders. Mosqueda, a maintenance worker, suffered catastrophic injuries, including paraplegia, after falling from a ladder while trimming a tree for the City of Clearlake. He contended that the employer violated several Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 sections related to safety, training, and equipment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied the petition for reconsideration, concluding that the employer's actions did not constitute serious and willful misconduct and that no alleged safety violation was the proximate cause of the accident.

Serious and willful misconductPetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderViolation of statuteViolation of safety orderCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3203Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(d)(1)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(e)(15)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(b)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(d)
References
1
Case No. ADJ10834446
Regular
Sep 22, 2017

Miguel Cueva vs. Pacific American Fish, Alaska National Insurance Co.

Applicant sought reconsideration of an order approving a compromise and release, alleging the defendant unreasonably delayed payment and seeking penalties. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition, clarifying that it was not a proper petition for reconsideration of the original order. Instead, the applicant's claims regarding delayed payment should be addressed at the scheduled status conference. The Board emphasized that a petition for reconsideration must be taken from a final order, not a procedural dispute about payment execution.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMiguel CuevaPacific American FishAlaska National Insurance Co.ADJ10834446Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseWCJLabor Code Section 5814(a)Penalty
References
4
Case No. ADJ8160241, ADJ8160224
Regular
Oct 04, 2012

MIGUEL DOMINGUEZ vs. MYERS CONTAINER,LLC

This case concerns Miguel Dominguez versus Myers Container, LLC, consolidated under Case No. ADJ8160241 and ADJ8160224. A petition for removal was filed by the applicant and subsequently withdrawn. As a result of the withdrawal, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing the petition for removal. No further action will be taken on this matter.

Petition for RemovalDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMIGUEL DOMINGUEZMYERS CONTAINERLLCCCMSIADJ8160241ADJ8160224
References
0
Case No. ADJ10345987, ADJ10346315
Regular
Jul 26, 2016

MIGUEL SILVAN vs. NKECHI AFRICAN CAFE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Miguel Silvan's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order determining substantive rights or liabilities. The WCAB also denied his Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denial. The WCJ's report, adopted by the WCAB, determined the appealed decision was procedural and interlocutory. Therefore, both the Petition for Reconsideration and Removal were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 137 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