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. ADJ13900666
Regular
Aug 01, 2025

German Renteria Pina vs. Miguel Diaz dba Brother Landscape, Da Vinci Schools

German Renteria Pina, the applicant, sustained a specific injury while employed by Miguel Diaz dba Brother Landscape, an uninsured entity. Da Vinci Schools, a permissibly self-insured entity, was also named as a defendant. The Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) petitioned for reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that Pina was an employee of Diaz and not Da Vinci, arguing errors in employment burden of proof and insufficient evidence. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior Findings of Fact and Order, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. This decision was made because the record was deemed incomplete to adequately determine Diaz's independent contractor status or the applicability of licensing requirements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundMiguel Diaz dba Brother LandscapeDa Vinci SchoolsAdjudication NumberPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderWCJBurden of ProofUltimate Hirer
References
28
Case No. ADJ9520089
Regular
Nov 21, 1937

IRMA SOLIS DIAZ vs. JESSE NAVARRO & LUPITA GUTIERREZ dba CASA DEL LAGO, UEBTF

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Irma Solis Diaz's petition for reconsideration in the case against Jesse Navarro and Lupita Gutierrez dba Casa del Lago. The Board adopted and incorporated the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The specific grounds for the denial are not detailed in this opinion but are attributed to the WCJ's report. Therefore, the initial decision, whatever it was, stands.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDENYINGWCJ'S REPORTADOPT AND INCORPORATELOS ANGELES DISTRICT OFFICEAPPLLICANTDEFENDANTSCASE NOOPINION AND ORDER
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02541
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Diaz v. Raveh Realty, LLC

Plaintiff Nimer Diaz, a carpenter, was injured at a construction site owned by defendant Raveh Realty, LLC, when a heavy plywood form fell and struck him. Diaz moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims, which was denied by the Supreme Court, Bronx County. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Diaz partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The court found that the type of work being performed involved a load that required securing and that the plaintiff's injury was the foreseeable consequence of performing the task without any safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute.

Labor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Construction AccidentFalling ObjectPlywood FormSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkplace SafetyStatutory ViolationForeseeable Risk
References
1
Case No. KA 11-00996
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2012

DIAZ, CARLOS, PEOPLE v

This case involves an appeal concerning the classification of Carlos Diaz under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The Monroe County Court initially determined him to be a level three risk, despite the risk assessment instrument (RAI) indicating a level two risk. The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended an upward departure based on his offense pattern and schizophrenia diagnosis. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, found the County Court's upward departure to be an error, stating that the factors relied upon were either already accounted for by the RAI or lacked sufficient admissible evidence. Consequently, the Appellate Division modified the order, classifying Diaz as a level two risk, with Justice Fahey dissenting.

Sex Offender Registration ActRisk Assessment InstrumentUpward DepartureLevel Two RiskLevel Three RiskSchizophrenia DiagnosisMental IllnessAppellate ReviewForcible CompulsionSexual Offenses
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diaz v. Rosbrock Associates Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Eduardo Londono Diaz, an employee of New Rochelle Hotel Association (NRHA), sustained injuries while working at the Ramada Plaza Hotel. He commenced an action against Rosbrock Associated Limited Partnership (Rosbrock), the landowner, alleging violations of the Labor Law. Rosbrock, which leased the land to NRHA, moved for summary judgment, arguing that NRHA and Rosbrock were effectively the same entity for Workers' Compensation Law purposes due to identical general and limited partners, thus precluding a lawsuit against the landowner under exclusive remedy provisions. The court granted Rosbrock's motion for summary judgment, finding that despite being separately maintained for tax and legal compliance, the identical partnership makeup rendered them a single entity for workers' compensation, thereby dismissing Diaz's action.

Limited Partnership LiabilityExclusive Remedy DoctrineIdentity of EntitiesLandowner Employer StatusSummary Judgment GrantLabor Law ViolationsPartnership LawStatutory DutyWorkplace Injury ClaimBoiler Maintenance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gilman Brothers Inc. v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.

The plaintiff, Gilman Brothers Inc., sued Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. (PMM) and individual defendants Burrows and McLaughlin for federal securities law violations and common law claims. The plaintiff alleged that PMM aided and abetted a scheme to defraud Gilman Brothers Inc. during its purchase of a majority stock interest in Systems for Advanced Information Inc. PMM moved to dismiss the claims, arguing they were time-barred under Massachusetts' statute of limitations. The court applied the two-year Massachusetts statute of limitations, finding the cause of action arose in April 1972. Although a federal tolling doctrine applied, the discovery of the fraud in July 1975 initiated the two-year period, rendering the December 1977 action untimely. Consequently, the court granted PMM's motion to dismiss the securities fraud claims and also dismissed the state common law claims.

Securities FraudStatute of LimitationsFederal Tolling DoctrineMassachusetts LawAccounting ServicesAiding and AbettingStock PurchaseMotion to DismissCommon Law ClaimsFinancial Statements
References
14
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02597 [193 AD3d 640]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2021

Diaz v. HHC TS Reit LLC

Plaintiff Rafael Diaz, a concrete worker, sustained injuries when unsecured metal conduit pipes toppled onto his head and shoulders. The incident occurred while Diaz was attempting to remove a plywood form from a space between a scaffold and a building column. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court, Bronx County's order, which had granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The court found unrebutted evidence that the metal pipes were not adequately secured for the purpose of the undertaking, thereby violating Labor Law § 240 (1). Additionally, the Appellate Division dismissed defendants' appeal as abandoned and noted that issues of fact regarding the ownership of the pipes precluded summary dismissal of the third-party complaint seeking contribution and common-law and contractual indemnification.

concrete worker injuryfalling object hazardscaffold safetyLabor Law 240(1)summary judgmentworkplace accidentindemnification claimcontribution claimunsecured equipmentappellate review
References
3
Case No. ADJ3252798 (ANA 0407298)
Regular
Nov 02, 2011

CATALINO DIAZ (Deceased), RUBERTA DIAZ (Widow), MARGARET NATASHA DIAZ vs. PEOPLE'S CARE INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns Ruberta Diaz's claim for death benefits as the widow of Catalino Diaz, who sustained a fatal industrial injury. The initial decision awarded benefits to their minor child but denied Ruberta’s claim, finding she failed to prove dependency. Ruberta contends she is a total dependent and that the judge erred in not addressing this, or alternatively, in finding no partial dependency. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, deferred the issue of Ruberta's dependency, and returned the case to the trial level for further evidence and decision, while affirming the award to the minor child.

DependencyDeath BenefitWidow's ClaimMinor ChildPartial DependencyTotal DependencyPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJEvidence
References
1
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salazar-Martinez v. Fowler Brothers, Inc.

Plaintiff Eustacio Salazar-Martinez sued Fowler Brothers, Inc., alleging violations of the FLSA and New York Labor Laws for failing to reimburse pre-employment travel, visa, and recruitment expenses, which allegedly reduced his first-week wages below minimum wage. Defendants sought summary judgment and dismissal of various claims. The court denied summary judgment, finding that pre-employment travel and visa expenses are primarily for the employer's benefit and must be reimbursed to avoid minimum wage violations, and that factual issues regarding recruitment fees remained. The court also denied dismissal for declaratory relief and for claims from 2006, 2007, and 2010, but granted dismissal for claims from 2003-2005. The case was referred for further pretrial matters, including class certification.

H-2A visa programFLSANew York Labor LawMinimum WageWage and HourReimbursementPre-employment expensesTravel expensesVisa costsRecruitment fees
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 1,069 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