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. Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2014

In re Residential Capital, LLC

Caren Wilson filed claims (Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181) asserting secured and unsecured claims against Residential Capital, LLC. The ResCap Borrower Claims Trust objected, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal with prejudice of a related federal action, or were improperly amended/late-filed. The Court applied federal res judicata law, finding that Wilson's claims arise from the same nucleus of facts as the previously dismissed Federal Action. Additionally, Claim No. 7181 was deemed either barred by res judicata or late-filed, and both claims failed to meet pleading standards for RICO and fraud. The Court sustained the Trust's objection, expunging both of Wilson's claims, but modified the automatic stay to allow Wilson to challenge the prior dismissal order in the Virginia District Court.

BankruptcyRes JudicataClaim ObjectionExpungementFailure to ProsecuteRule 41(b) DismissalRICOFraudDebtor-CreditorMortgage Securitization
References
45
Case No. ADJ4343203
Regular
Feb 06, 2015

PEDRO CABALLERO (DECEASED) vs. CONTINENTAL PUMPING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a deceased applicant whose death was determined by an Agreed Medical Evaluator to be unrelated to his industrial injury. The defendant sought dismissal of the claim, but the WCJ initially included a provision requiring all liens to be resolved first. The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no statutory basis to delay dismissal pending lien resolution, especially since lien claimants were properly served and did not object. The Board amended the Notice of Intent to Dismiss, removing the lien resolution requirement, and ordered the Application for Adjudication of Claim dismissed.

Petition for RemovalSkeletal PetitionNotice of Intent to DismissAgreed Medical EvaluatorDismissal for Failure to ProsecuteLien ClaimantsApplication for Adjudication of ClaimWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryCause of Death
References
0
Case No. ADJ7331340
Regular
Sep 07, 2012

JAKE VU vs. MOLINA HEALTH CARE CENTER, TRAVELERS

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's order dismissing his workers' compensation case. The applicant claimed he did not understand he was dismissing his case when he signed the dismissal order on the same day he dismissed his attorney. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely, as it was filed over three months after the dismissal order was served. While the petition was dismissed, the Board advised the applicant that he could file a new application for adjudication of claim within the statutory period if he wished to pursue his claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalIn pro perNotice of Dismissal of Attorneyuntimely petitionjurisdictionLabor CodeInformation and Assistance OfficeApplication for Adjudication of Claim
References
4
Case No. ADJ1635548 (POM 0300369)
Regular
Feb 20, 2015

FERNANDO GUTIERREZ vs. CLAIM JUMPER RESTAURANT, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order they sought to reconsider was not a final order, as it merely provided an opportunity to litigate a lien claim. The WCAB also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCJ correctly vacated a prior order dismissing a lien claimant's claim due to a lack of proof of service. Therefore, the matter will proceed to further litigation regarding the lien.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Vacating Lien DismissalOrder Dismissing LienLien ClaimantCompromise and ReleaseNotice of Intent to DismissProof of ServiceSubstantive Right
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1996

Del Vecchio v. State

The claimants, Salvatore and Karen Del Vecchio, appealed an order from the Court of Claims which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing that claim. Salvatore Del Vecchio was injured while rescuing a co-worker who fell into Jamaica Bay during bridge construction, arguing his back injuries were a result of the incident caused by unsecured planking and lack of safety devices. The appellate court affirmed the order, holding that Labor Law § 240 (1) provides "exceptional protection" for specific gravity-related accidents (falling from height, struck by falling object) and does not extend to a rescuer like Del Vecchio, who did not sustain a direct gravity-related injury. The majority concluded that the "danger invites rescue" doctrine is not applicable to Labor Law § 240 (1) claims due to the statute's absolute liability and limited scope, which should not be expanded. A dissenting opinion argued that the doctrine should apply to workers injured while rescuing someone imperiled by a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation, emphasizing the statute's purpose of protecting workers and imposing strict liability.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Danger Invites Rescue DoctrineAbsolute LiabilityGravity-Related InjurySummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentElevated WorksiteProximate CauseAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. ADJ1035201
Regular
Oct 04, 2016

VICTOR DURAN vs. DONUT INN, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board is considering rescinding an order that dismissed Metro Med Shockwave's lien claim for failure to pay a $\$100$ lien activation fee. The WCJ dismissed the lien because the fee was not paid before the lien conference, citing prior precedent. However, the lien claimant argues they had until December 31, 2015, to pay the fee based on a DWC Newsline article referencing a court order. The Board intends to rescind the dismissal if the fee is paid within ten days, allowing further proceedings on the lien claim.

Labor Code section 4903.06Lien activation feeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMetro Med ShockwaveFigueroa v. B.C Doering Co.Angelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionDWC NewslineReconsiderationRescind order
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 1998

Higgins v. 1790 Broadway Associates

Plaintiff, an employee of O & P Management Corp., suffered injuries while attempting to repair a freight elevator using a defective ladder. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment, dismissing claims against all defendants: Central Elevator, 1790 Broadway Associates, John Phufas, and O & P Management. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Central Elevator and the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against 1790 Broadway Associates and Phufas. However, it denied the cross-motion by 1790 Broadway Associates and John Phufas to dismiss claims of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, reinstating these claims. The court reasoned that it was foreseeable a worker might use the defective ladder, which constituted a dangerous condition, and that the owners failed to demonstrate lack of notice regarding this unsafe condition.

Elevator AccidentDefective LadderCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240(1)Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentActual NoticeConstructive NoticeWorkplace Safety
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 1992

Biszick v. Ninnie Construction Corp.

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Duchess County, which granted summary judgment motions by several defendants, including Halmar Construction Corp. and International Business Machines Corporation. These motions dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, specifically causes of action based on Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was properly dismissed as it relied on general safety standards, which are insufficient under this section. The Labor Law § 200 claim was also correctly dismissed because the alleged defect originated from a subcontractor's methods, and the defendants lacked supervisory control over the operation. The court found no merit in the plaintiffs' remaining arguments.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Construction SafetyWorkplace SafetyNondelegable DutySubcontractor LiabilityAppellate AffirmationNew York Supreme Court
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1992

Baca v. HRH Construction Corp.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order dismissing a third-party plaintiff's claim for contribution. The court determined that a pre-verdict "high-low" agreement between the plaintiffs and the third-party plaintiff general contractor constituted a release under General Obligations Law § 15-108, thereby barring the contribution claim against the third-party defendant. It was also noted that the plaintiffs lacked standing to appeal the dismissal of the third-party claim. Furthermore, the court found that the third-party plaintiff's purported assignment of its contribution claim to the plaintiff was void, as no claim to assign existed given that its liability was limited to less than its equitable share by the settlement. The court also questioned whether such an assignment could circumvent the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions.

High-low agreementContribution claimGeneral Obligations Law § 15-108ReleaseCPLR 5511Standing to appealWorkers' Compensation Law exclusivityEquitable shareAssignment of claimThird-party practice
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibson v. State of New York

The claimant sought to file a late claim for personal injuries and property damages sustained in an incident at Harlem Valley State Hospital. Although the claimant filed a notice of intention 138 days after the incident, exceeding the 90-day statutory limit, the Court of Claims initially denied the State's motion to dismiss and granted claimant's motion for an examination before trial. On appeal, the court determined that no formal application for late filing was made. Furthermore, even considering the claimant's affidavit as such an application, it was submitted over three years after the claimant's alleged disability (amnesia) was removed and beyond the two-year statutory period for late claims under both the former and amended Court of Claims Act sections. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the orders, emphasizing that the time limitations in the Court of Claims Act are jurisdictional and must be strictly construed, and dismissed the claim.

Late filingCourt of Claims ActJurisdictional limitationsPersonal injuriesProperty damagesAmnesiaExcusable delayMotion to dismissExamination before trialRetroactive effect of amendments
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 33,838 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