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. ADJ7357973
Regular
Apr 18, 2012

Pete Rios vs. Peppertree Distributors, Inc., FirstComp Omaha for Southern Insurance Company

This case concerns Pete Rios' workers' compensation claim, where the Appeals Board denied his petition for reconsideration. The applicant argued that temporary disability benefits should not be terminated based on a narrow interpretation of Labor Code Section 4656(c)(2). However, the Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding that the applicant's injury date of April 24, 2009, falls under LC 4656(c)(2), which limits benefits to 104 weeks within five years from the injury date. The Board noted that jurisdiction remains open for penalties and sanctions regarding delayed temporary disability payments.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPete RiosPeppertree DistributorsInc.FirstComp OmahaSouthern Insurance CompanyOrder Denying ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeTemporary Disability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. Siara Management, Inc.

Claimant, a custodian, sustained two work-related injuries in 2000, and his workers' compensation benefits were approved. In 2003, the employer's workers' compensation carrier requested an independent medical examination (IME) by Charles Totero. Claimant moved to preclude Totero's report, arguing it was improperly mailed by UMC Medical Consultants, EC., an IME services company, instead of Totero himself, in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 137. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied the motion, finding UMC, as Totero's direct employer and a registered IME company, was authorized to perform administrative services like mailing reports under 12 NYCRR 300.2 (e) (1). The appellate court affirmed the decision, concluding that the submission substantially complied with statutory requirements.

IME Report AdmissibilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 137Procedural ComplianceMedical Report MailingIME Services CompanyAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationIndependent Medical Examiner12 NYCRR 300.2
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

District 2 Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'n v. Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc.

District 2, a marine engineers union, sued Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc. (PRMMI) to compel arbitration after PRMMI terminated their collective bargaining agreement and discharged union members. PRMMI argued the agreement was terminable at will, while District 2 maintained it was still in effect, terminable only by the union. The court found both interpretations unpersuasive, ruling the agreement's extension implied a reasonable period for good faith negotiations and required reasonable notice for termination. Therefore, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment and PRMMI's motion to dismiss, ordering a factual hearing to determine the effectiveness of the termination, while making accrued benefit claims immediately arbitrable.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementContract TerminationLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionUnionEmployerGood Faith NegotiationsReasonable Notice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 1994

Savino v. UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that determined an employer-employee relationship existed between a limousine driver, who was also a shareholder, and UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc. The Board awarded workers' compensation benefits for injuries the claimant sustained while on duty. The appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, stating that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is a factual issue supported by substantial evidence, consistent with prior case law. The court also rejected the respondent's stare decisis argument, clarifying that administrative determinations under one statute are not binding under another.

Employer-employee relationshipWorkers' Compensation BoardLimousine driverSubstantial evidenceStare decisisUnemployment Insurance LawAppellate reviewIndependent contractor distinctionOn-duty injuryShareholder status
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Qavi v. Utog 2-Way Radio, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed April 24, 1997, which determined an employer-employee relationship existed between a claimant, a limousine driver, and Utog 2-Way Radio, Inc., a dispatched car service. The claimant was injured in an automobile collision and sought benefits. The Board’s finding of an employer-employee relationship, crucial for benefit eligibility, was upheld by the appellate court due to substantial evidence of control exerted by Utog over the claimant. This determination aligned with previous similar cases involving Utog and other limousine drivers. The court rejected Utog’s arguments regarding a lease agreement and insufficient notice of claim, affirming the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipLimousine DriverAutomobile CollisionSubstantial EvidenceControl TestAppellate ReviewFactual IssueBoard DeterminationNotice of Claim
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1971

Hodgson v. Liquor Salesmen's Union, Local No. 2

The Secretary of Labor brought an action to set aside the January 9, 1970 election of officers for Liquor Salesmen’s Union, Local No. 2, and to order a new supervised election. The Secretary alleged violations of 29 U.S.C. § 481(g), specifically that the Union used its financed publication, "The Journal," to promote incumbent candidates and that an employer used company funds to influence the election. The court found that the Union's use of "The Journal" did violate § 481(g) and that this likely affected the election outcome, given the narrow margins of victory for incumbents. However, the court found no direct employer contribution to promote candidates. The court also rejected the defendant's First Amendment and vagueness challenges to § 481(g). Consequently, the court voided the election and ordered a new election under the Secretary's supervision.

Union Election LawLMRDA Section 481(g)Union Funds MisuseCampaign LiteratureEmployer Election InterferenceExhaustion of Union RemediesFirst Amendment RightsLabor Organization GovernanceElection IrregularitiesFederal District Court
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gesauldi v. Dan Yant Inc.

Plaintiffs, trustees of various Local 282 trust funds, initiated an action against Dan Yant Inc. for failing to make required contributions to the funds, violating ERISA and LMRA. Defendant defaulted after being served. Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann recommended granting default judgment to plaintiffs, awarding $2,418.28 in unpaid contributions, $1,300.00 in audit fees, $3,313.64 in attorney's fees and costs, and prejudgment interest and liquidated damages. District Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto reviewed the Report and Recommendation, found no clear error, and adopted it as the court's opinion, ordering judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

Default JudgmentERISALMRAUnpaid ContributionsTrust FundsCollective Bargaining AgreementDelinquent ContributionsAudit FeesAttorney FeesPrejudgment Interest
References
26
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06668
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2025

Rivera v. Site 2 DSA Owner, LLC

Plaintiff was injured while lifting a heavy gang box into a truck. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division modified this decision, denying summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and reinstating it. Furthermore, the Appellate Division granted summary judgment on liability to the plaintiff for his Labor Law § 240(1) claim against specific defendants (Site 2 DSA Owner, LLC, Delancey Street Associates, LLC, and T.G. Nickel & Associates, LLC), while otherwise affirming the lower court's order. The court also noted a contradiction in pleadings regarding ownership by one of the defendants, Delancey Street Associates, LLC.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityAppellate DivisionGang Box InjuryConstruction AccidentPleading ContradictionOwner LiabilityWorkplace Safety
References
2
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02373 [170 AD3d 1227]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2019

Simon v. Granite Bldg. 2, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning an action for personal injuries and wrongful death. The plaintiff, Charles Simon, individually and as administrator of Julie Simon's estate, sued Granite Building 2, LLC, Kulka Contracting, LLC, and FXR Construction, Inc., after Julie Simon died and Charles Simon was injured in a construction site accident. The incident occurred when their vehicle slid on ice in an unfinished parking garage, causing it to fall into an excavation pit. A jury found Granite and Kulka negligent. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, concluding that issues regarding the 'storm in progress' doctrine and the construction manager's liability were properly submitted to the jury. The court also upheld the reduced damages awards as not materially deviating from reasonable compensation.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathConstruction Site AccidentNegligenceLabor LawPremises LiabilityJury VerdictDamagesAppellate ReviewCPLR 4404
References
20
Case No. 2016-334 S C
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2017

2 & 9 Acupuncture, P.C. v. 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by 2 & 9 Acupuncture, P.C. from an amended order that granted summary judgment to 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company, dismissing a complaint to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant argued it had paid the plaintiff in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendant failed to prima facie demonstrate proper denial of payment for services billed under CPT codes 97026 and 97016. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding these specific CPT codes was denied.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentCPT CodesWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewInsurance LawMedical BillingAcupunctureSuffolk CountyPayment Dispute
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 6,324 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