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. 2021 NY Slip Op 03412 [195 AD3d 419]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2021

Martinez v. 214 W. 39th St. LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order granting summary judgment to 214 West 39th Street LLC, dismissing Luis Martinez's complaint. The court found that Martinez was a 'special employee' of the defendant. Undisputed evidence, including Martinez's own testimony, demonstrated that the defendant's superintendent supervised and directed Martinez's work, thereby establishing the defendant's exclusive control over the plaintiff's work. Consequently, the plaintiff's complaint against the defendant is precluded by Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6).

Special EmployeeSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate DivisionLabor LawEmployer ControlPersonal InjuryBronx CountyPlaintiff's TestimonyExclusive Remedy
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP

Eunice Martinez sued her former employer, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Martinez claimed she was denied promotions/upgrades, received discriminatory annual raises, and experienced retaliation for filing a charge with the EEOC. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis to her claims. It found Martinez failed to establish a prima facie case for failure to promote/upgrade due to insufficient evidence regarding comparable qualifications and job duties. Her claim of raise discrimination was also denied because her comparators held managerial positions, unlike her. Finally, the retaliation claim was dismissed as adverse job actions predated her protected activity. Consequently, Davis Polk's motion for summary judgment was granted.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISection 1981Summary JudgmentFailure to PromoteUnequal PayEEOC ComplaintMcDonnell Douglas TestEmployment Law
References
20
Case No. CV-23-1320
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Victor Martinez

Claimant Victor Martinez, a pan boiler operator, tested positive for COVID-19 in December 2020 after interacting with a co-worker and filed a workers' compensation claim. The employer and carrier controverted the claim, arguing it did not arise from employment. The Workers' Compensation Board established the claim, finding Martinez contracted COVID-19 through specific workplace exposure, a decision later affirmed. The Appellate Division upheld the Board's determination, citing substantial evidence, including the claimant's direct contact with an infected co-worker (R.H.) and limited outside exposure. The court emphasized that a compensable accident occurs when COVID-19 is contracted as an unusual hazard in the workplace, and the Board's crediting of claimant's testimony was within its prerogative.

Workers' CompensationCOVID-19 ExposureAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkplace HazardCausal ConnectionSpecific ExposureBoard Determination
References
10
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00129 [234 AD3d 1069]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

Matter of Martinez v. Domino Foods, Inc.

Claimant Victor Martinez, a pan boiler operator, tested positive for COVID-19 on December 23, 2020, after alleged exposure from a coworker at his sugar factory workplace. He subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. The employer and its carrier controverted the claim, arguing he did not sustain a compensable accident. Following hearings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, which was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding substantial evidence that Martinez contracted COVID-19 due to a specific workplace exposure, supported by his limited outside contact and the timing of a coworker's positive test.

Workers' CompensationCOVID-19Workplace ExposureAccidental InjuryCausal ConnectionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewControverted ClaimEmployer LiabilityThird Department
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02519 [182 AD3d 966]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Matter of Martinez v. New York Produce

Claimant Carlos Martinez, a delivery person, filed for workers' compensation benefits in April 2017 due to work-related head injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim for a traumatic brain injury but later denied an amendment to include bilateral knee injuries. Martinez, represented by counsel, sought Board review of the WCLJ's August 2018 decision. The Workers' Compensation Board denied this application, citing non-compliance with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) as it failed to specify when an objection was interposed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in deeming the application incomplete.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawProcedural ComplianceBoard RegulationsApplication for ReviewForm RB-89Objection TimingWCLJ DecisionTraumatic Brain Injury
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01878 [181 AD3d 1130]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Martinez v. Family Care Servs., Inc.

Martha Martinez, a home attendant, sought review of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision regarding her causally-related disability and attachment to the labor market. The Workers' Compensation Board denied her request for administrative review, citing her failure to fully comply with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b). Specifically, Martinez, though represented by counsel, did not specify when an objection to the WCLJ's ruling was interposed on the application for Board review (RB-89 form). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's discretionary denial, concluding that given multiple hearings had occurred, the Board did not abuse its discretion in deeming the response incomplete.

Workers' Compensation ClaimAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawBoard ProcedureApplication IncompletenessDue ProcessJudicial DiscretionRegulatory ComplianceLost WagesDisability Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

321 Henderson Receivables, L.P. v. Martinez

The case concerns a petition by 321 Henderson Receivables to purchase structured settlement payments from Pedro Martinez, Jr. under the Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA). Justice Alice Schlesinger examined whether the proposed transfer met the statutory requirements of being in the "best interest" of the payee and "fair and reasonable." The court found the transaction unreasonable, noting a significant discount rate (55.70% of current value) and a 16.39% interest rate. Additionally, Mr. Martinez, a 21-year-old with no income or assets, lacked a concrete and viable plan for the funds, indicating the transfer was not in his best interest. Consequently, the court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, emphasizing the SSPA's role in protecting vulnerable payees.

Structured Settlement Protection ActStructured Settlement TransferFactoring CompanyPayee ProtectionBest Interest StandardGeneral Obligations LawDiscount RateFinancial HardshipJudicial ReviewDenial of Petition
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. City of New York

Plaintiff Walfredo Martinez, an environmental inspector, was injured after falling from a height while inspecting for asbestos in a school building owned by the City of New York. He sued for common-law negligence and violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging failure to provide safety devices. The Supreme Court denied his motion and granted defendants' cross-motions, finding his inspection work outside the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals further affirmed, ruling that the plaintiff's purely investigatory work, which preceded any actual asbestos removal and was not part of the enumerated activities in Labor Law § 240 (1), did not entitle him to its protection.

Asbestos inspectionFall from heightLabor Law interpretationWorker injuryStatutory scopeSafety devicesInvestigatory workAppellate reviewNew York Court of AppealsConstruction safety
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AGUDO-MARTINEZ v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Gilberto Agudo Martinez sought disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, alleging disability since December 1999. His initial applications were denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and subsequently upheld by the Appeals Council. This case involves the plaintiff's challenge to the Commissioner's decision, wherein the Court found that the ALJ failed to properly apply the treating physician rule regarding the conclusions of Dr. Charles Ippolito concerning the plaintiff's physical impairments. Consequently, the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits was reversed, and the matter was remanded for proper consideration of Dr. Ippolito's medical opinions.

Disability BenefitsSocial SecurityTreating Physician RuleMedical ImpairmentMental ImpairmentAtrial FibrillationDiabetes MellitusAnxiety DisorderALJ ErrorRemand
References
14
Case No. ADJ10037291
Regular
Apr 01, 2025

Adan Alvarez vs. Victor Manuel Martinez, Justine Marie Martinez

The Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) petitioned for reconsideration of a decision that allowed applicant Adan Alvarez to pursue a workers' compensation claim against Victor Manuel Martinez and Justine Marie Martinez despite his failure to file a proof of claim in the employers' bankruptcy proceedings. UEBTF contended that Alvarez was required to file a proof of claim in a Chapter 7 asset bankruptcy. The Appeals Board denied UEBTF's petition, affirming its prior decision. The Board distinguished this case from previous rulings, concluding that an employee's failure to file a proof of claim in bankruptcy is not fatal to their workers' compensation claim if no award exists at the time of the bankruptcy discharge.

UEBTFbankruptcyproof of claimChapter 7 assetChapter 7 no assetdischarge injunctionLabor Code section 3716Ortiz v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Slali v. RuizWCJ
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 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