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. ADJ11844639
Regular
Apr 08, 2019

REINA HERNANDEZ vs. MERCHANTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE, LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated its prior grant of reconsideration and dismissed the applicant's petition. The WCAB found that the applicant's petition for reconsideration was untimely, as it was filed after the jurisdictional deadline. The arbitrator's decision was issued on October 15, 2018, making the filing deadline November 9, 2018. Since the petition was filed on November 14, 2018, it was dismissed as untimely.

Petition for reconsiderationuntimelyjurisdictionalvacatedismissLabor CodeCal. Code Regs.arbitratorservicemail
References
4
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06918 [167 AD3d 27]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2018

Matter of Keanu S.

Keanu S., a juvenile delinquent, appealed the Family Court's denial of his renewed motion for specific findings to enable him to petition for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS). The Family Court denied the motion, ruling that placement in a juvenile delinquency matter does not satisfy the dependency requirement of 8 USC § 1101 (a) (27) (J). The Appellate Division, Second Department, agreed with the Family Court's determination, holding that Keanu S. was not an intended beneficiary of the SIJS provisions because his placement was due to criminal acts, not abuse, neglect, or abandonment. The Court affirmed the order, emphasizing that the SIJS scheme is intended for abused, neglected, or abandoned children, and that using juvenile delinquency adjudications as a conduit for SIJS would contradict congressional intent. The dissenting opinion argued that the plain language of the statute, federal immigration policy, and state law do not exclude children in juvenile delinquency placements from meeting the dependency requirement for SIJS.

Special Immigrant Juvenile StatusJuvenile DelinquencyDependency RequirementImmigration LawFamily Court DecisionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationChild CustodyAbuse and NeglectAbandonment
References
45
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06763 [222 AD3d 1013]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2023

Rodriguez v. 27-11 49th Ave. Realty, LLC

The plaintiff, Tomas Rodriguez, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to defendant Mana Products, Inc., dismissing the complaint against it. Rodriguez had sued 27-11 49th Avenue Realty, LLC, and Mana after a slip and fall in a factory. The defendants argued that the complaint against Mana was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, claiming Rodriguez was Mana's special employee. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendants established a prima facie case for summary judgment based on Rodriguez's deposition testimony, indicating Mana controlled his work details, thus establishing a special employment relationship as a matter of law.

Special Employee DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary Judgment GrantPersonal Injury ClaimAppellate Division Second DepartmentControl over WorkEmployer LiabilityPlaintiff's AppealDefendant's MotionSlip and Fall Accident
References
5
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03576 [239 AD3d 752]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2025

Matter of Royal v. Royal

The case "Matter of Royal v Royal" involves an appeal by Albert Royal (father) against Mireille M. Royal (mother) regarding his retroactive child and spousal support obligations. The parties, married in 2014 with two children, separated in June 2018. In July 2018, the mother sought support. Subsequently, the father suffered significant injuries from a work accident and two motor vehicle accidents in late 2018 and 2019, rendering him unable to continue as a construction worker and leading him to receive public assistance after exhausting unemployment benefits. The Support Magistrate and Family Court used the father's 2018 income tax return to determine his support obligations for the period from July 2018 through December 2019, amounting to $48,200.22. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the 2018 income tax return did not accurately reflect the father's actual income during the period from November 2018 through December 2019 due to his injuries and inability to work. The matter was remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a recalculation of the father's income and, if appropriate, his retroactive support obligations for the specified period.

Family LawChild SupportSpousal SupportImputed IncomeRetroactive SupportIncome RecalculationParental Financial ObligationPersonal InjuryUnemployment BenefitsPublic Assistance
References
3
Case No. ADJ2128084 VNO 0428792, ADJ1712801 VNO 0428794, ADJ346332 VNO 0428790, ADJ6882145
Regular
Jan 29, 2019

NAYER GARAS vs. RXI PLASTICS, INC.

The petitioner for reconsideration has withdrawn their petition regarding the November 27, 2018 decision. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed the petition. This dismissal pertains to case numbers ADJ2128084, ADJ1712801, ADJ346332, and ADJ6882145. The order was issued by WCAB and concurred with by Chair Katherine Zalewski on January 29, 2019.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantCase NumbersOpinion and OrderNovember 27 2018San Francisco California
References
0
Case No. ADJ11114421
Regular
Jun 05, 2025

FELIX CABRERA vs. OAA INVESTMENTS, INC.; CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORP.

Defendant California Restaurant Mutual Benefit Corporation (CRMBC) sought reconsideration of a February 19, 2021 Findings and Order (F&O) which found CRMBC liable for coverage of applicant Felix Cabrera's injury, ruling that CRMBC's policy cancellation was premature. CRMBC contended it had no coverage obligations as the applicant was employed by OAA Investments, Inc., not insured by CRMBC, and argued against the applicability of Insurance Code section 676.8. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCA's F&O, treating the petition as one for reconsideration, and found that under Insurance Code section 676.8 and equitable principles, CRMBC was liable for coverage. The Board reasoned that due to a material change in ownership, CRMBC's cancellation notice required 30 days' notice, making January 27, 2018, the earliest effective cancellation date, which was after the November 22, 2017 injury date.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderPolicy CancellationInsurance Code Section 676.8Material Change in OwnershipEquitable EstoppelAffiliate Certificate of Consent to Self-InsureGroup Self-InsurerAD Rule 15480
References
15
Case No. ADJ8332660
Regular
Feb 28, 2019

CELEDONIO RAMIREZ vs. MANO PALLETS, INC.; IMPERIUM, adjusted by ATHENS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a Petition for Removal filed by the defendant. The petition was dismissed because it was untimely, as it was filed on December 3, 2018, beyond the November 13, 2018 deadline for seeking removal of the WCJ's October 19, 2018 Findings and Order. The WCAB emphasized that filing with the Board, not just mailing, is required to meet the deadline. Furthermore, even if timely, the petition would likely have been denied due to a lack of demonstrated prejudice.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingDismissalWCABWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)Findings and OrderService by MailTime ExtensionProof of FilingSubstantial Prejudice
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02199 [193 AD3d 1197]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2021

Matter of Weishar v. Dan Tait Inc.

Patrick Daniel Volpe Sr. sustained multiple injuries while working and was later found to be permanently totally disabled, receiving weekly wage loss benefits. He negotiated a Workers' Compensation Law § 32 settlement agreement, which, after an initial rejection, was revised and approved by the Workers' Compensation Board on June 27, 2018. The approval came with a 10-day period for withdrawal, set to expire on July 13, 2018. However, Volpe Sr. died on July 5, 2018, before this withdrawal period concluded. Subsequently, the Board rescinded its approval, deeming the agreement a nullity, a decision that was upheld by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and later affirmed by the Appellate Division, Third Department.

Settlement Agreement NullityWorkers' Compensation Board ApprovalSection 32 AgreementDeath Before Final Approval10-Day Waiting PeriodUnconscionable AgreementAppellate ReviewWage Loss BenefitsPermanent Total DisabilityEstate Claim
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2012

Next Phase Distribution, Inc. v. John Does 1-27

Plaintiff Next Phase Distribution, Inc. filed a motion seeking leave for early discovery to identify John Doe defendants who allegedly infringed copyright by downloading their pornographic film via BitTorrent. The Court initially ordered Next Phase to show cause why John Does 2-27 should not be severed. After reviewing Next Phase's response and considering a district-wide split in similar cases, the Court sua sponte exercised its discretion to sever and dismiss without prejudice all claims against John Does 2-27 due to potential for differing defenses, risk of false positives, and the sensitive nature of the subject matter. The Court then granted Next Phase’s Motion for Discovery solely for John Doe 1 and issued a protective order to maintain confidentiality, citing the need for information to identify John Doe 1 and the routine deletion of ISP logs.

Copyright InfringementBitTorrentPeer-to-peer networkJohn Doe defendantsExpedited discoverySeverance of claimsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 20(a)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 20(b)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 21Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 42(b)
References
24
Case No. ADJ9161105
Regular
Mar 04, 2019

EULOJIO MERAZ vs. TRI STATE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, ACCOUNTABILITIES; CIGA, ICW

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Eulojio Meraz's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The WCJ's order was issued on November 29, 2018, making the deadline for reconsideration December 24, 2018. Meraz's petition was filed on January 14, 2019, which exceeded the jurisdictional deadline. Therefore, the WCAB lacked the authority to consider the petition's merits and had to dismiss it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationuntimelydismissaljurisdictional time limitLab. CodeCal. Code Regs.Lien ClaimNon-AppearanceLien Conference
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,375 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