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. ADJ4087697 [SDO 0359290] ADJ3019069 [SDO 0361778]
Regular
Dec 04, 2008

NORMA MENDEZ vs. DIRECTED ELECTRONICS, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior decision and returned the case for further proceedings to clarify whether modified work was indefinitely available for the applicant after her termination for cause on October 18, 2006. The employer suggested modified work was available during their busy season, but the WCAB found the record inconclusive regarding indefinite availability. The WCAB upheld the finding that the employer did not violate Labor Code section 132a.

Odd Lot DoctrineTemporary Total DisabilityLabor Code Section 132aModified WorkIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryLumbar Spine InjuryLeft Shoulder InjuryLeft Cheek ContusionReconsideration
References
1
Case No. ADJ 7762176
Regular
Nov 07, 2011

MARTIN ESPARZA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns an applicant with an admitted industrial injury who was medically cleared for modified duty. The employer refused to rehire the applicant due to his inability to provide documentation of his legal U.S. work status, despite having available modified work. The applicant is receiving temporary disability benefits, which the employer seeks to terminate, arguing the applicant is partially disabled and his inability to work is due to immigration status, not the injury. The Workers' Compensation Judge recommended denying the employer's petition, citing that California law extends all state protections to employees regardless of immigration status.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardTemporary Disability BenefitsLegally EmployableModified DutyAlternate WorkImmigration StatusUndocumented WorkerLawfully EmployedSocial Security NumberIndustrial Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parrales v. Wonder Works Construction Corp.

The plaintiff, who sustained personal injuries while working in an elevator shaft used for demolition debris disposal, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The initial order granted the defendants' motion for reargument and, upon reargument, vacated a prior order that had granted the plaintiff summary judgment on certain Labor Law § 241 (6) claims. The appellate court modified the order, reinstating summary judgment for the plaintiff on claims predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a)(1), 23-1.20, and 23-2.5 (a), finding the plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of entitlement. However, the court also awarded summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (b), concluding that this provision lacked the specificity required for such a cause of action.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentDemolition WorkConstruction AccidentFalling DebrisIndustrial CodeComparative NegligenceAppellate ReviewKings County
References
11
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04773 [129 AD3d 471]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2015

Serowik v. Leardon Boiler Works Inc.

Jozef Serowik, an employee of GDT, sustained severe hand injuries while lowering a heavy tank, which was part of a boiler installation. The incident led to claims under Labor Law sections. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Serowik partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants appealed, and the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court dismissed Serowik's common law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and granted conditional summary judgment on common law indemnification to the defendants. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the finding of liability against defendants under Labor Law § 240 (1), determining that Leardon Boiler Works Inc. could be held liable as an agent of the owner.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentIndemnificationAppellate ReviewGravity AccidentScaffolding LawOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityProximate Cause
References
5
Case No. ADJ10647045
Regular
Mar 19, 2018

EDDIE GRIJALVA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior Findings and Order. The WCAB found the record insufficiently developed to determine entitlement to temporary disability benefits, particularly regarding the availability and nature of modified work offered. Conflicting testimony exists regarding whether applicant was terminated or refused modified work, necessitating further development of the record. The case is returned to the trial level for additional proceedings to address these issues.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderTemporary Total DisabilityTemporary Partial DisabilityModified WorkBurden of ProofAdmitted EvidenceModified Work OfferRefusal of Work
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Cale

Claimant, a Canadian national, worked as a social worker at New York University Medical Center under a TN visa. After her inpatient position was eliminated, she applied for partial unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that she was ineligible to receive them because she was not available for employment. The court affirmed this decision, noting that a non-United States citizen must have valid work authorization from the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Her TN visa restricted her to working for a specific employer, NYUMC, and she was not authorized to seek employment elsewhere, thereby rendering her unavailable for work and ineligible for benefits.

Unemployment InsuranceVisa RestrictionsWork AuthorizationImmigration StatusTN VisaEligibility for BenefitsAvailability for EmploymentAppellate DecisionNew York LawSocial Worker
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2014

In Re the Arbitration Between Delaney Group, Inc. & Holmgren Enterprises, Inc.

This case involves cross-appeals from a Supreme Court order concerning an arbitration dispute between a prime contractor (Petitioner) and a subcontractor (Respondent) on a public work project. Respondent initially sought additional payment via arbitration, leading to an award that included credits for Petitioner. After a request for clarification, the arbitrator issued a modified award removing these credits. Petitioner then sought to vacate both the original and modified awards, while Respondent sought to confirm the modified award. The Supreme Court vacated both arbitration awards and remanded the case for a rehearing, finding that the arbitrator exceeded authority in modifying the award and imperfectly executed powers in the original award by failing to address a key stipulation. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, upholding the vacatur and remand of both arbitration awards.

ArbitrationContract DisputePublic Work ProjectSubcontractorPrime ContractorCross AppealsVacatur of AwardRemandArbitrator AuthorityCPLR 7511
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06537 [165 AD3d 667]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Matter of Heritage Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

This case involves an appeal by Heritage Mechanical Services, Inc. (petitioner) from a judgment denying its petition to annul a determination by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (DPW). The dispute stemmed from a general construction contract awarded to Posillico/Skanska, JV for a waste water treatment plant upgrade. Heritage was listed as a subcontractor for HVAC work, but a disagreement arose over the agreed-upon amount, with Heritage claiming a higher price for alternates not included in the initial bid figure. DPW approved Posillico's request to perform the HVAC work itself, citing Heritage's refusal as a 'legitimate construction need' under General Municipal Law § 101 (5). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding DPW's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or an abuse of discretion, and thus dismissed the proceeding.

Public Works ContractSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Municipal LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProject Labor AgreementHVAC SubcontractBid DisputeContractual Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2010

Coaxum v. Metcon Construction, Inc.

Plaintiff was injured after being pushed by a coworker and falling into an open hole while working on premises owned by defendant 200 West 26, LLC and leased by defendant Buy Buy Baby, Inc. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which was denied by the Supreme Court, Bronx County. On appeal, the order was modified to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims because defendants did not supervise plaintiff's work. Additionally, the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was dismissed to the extent it relied on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1), as the accident area was a work area, not a passageway. However, questions of fact remain regarding the existence, size, and depth of the hole for Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1).

Summary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial CodeFalling HazardWork AreaPassagewayIntervening ActSuperseding Cause
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 1992

Carr v. Jacob Perl Associates

The plaintiff, an elevator maintenance mechanic, was injured after falling into an open elevator shaft while attempting to climb into a stuck elevator without proper equipment. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied defendant-appellant Jacob Perl Associates' motion for summary judgment, granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on liability against Perl, and denied third-party defendant-respondent Otis Elevator Company's cross-motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was modified to grant Jacob Perl Associates summary judgment on its third-party complaint seeking indemnity from Otis Elevator Company. The appellate court affirmed Perl's absolute liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) as the building owner for failing to provide safety devices, finding the plaintiff was engaged in 'repair' work. However, Perl was found entitled to indemnity from Otis, the plaintiff's employer, as Perl did not supervise or control the work, and the elevator maintenance contract was solely between the lessee and Otis, making Otis responsible for the work.

Summary JudgmentIndemnityLabor LawElevator AccidentWorker InjuryBuilding Owner LiabilityThird-Party ComplaintAppellate ReviewConstruction LawSafety Devices
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 8,756 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