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. 2020 NY Slip Op 01455
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2020

Mendez v. Bank of Am., N.A.

Juan Mendez, an employee of Liberty Contracting Corp., was allegedly injured while performing demolition work for Americon Construction, Inc. Americon sought summary judgment on a contractual indemnification claim against Liberty, which the Supreme Court granted. Liberty cross-moved to dismiss the claim, which was denied. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, denying Americon's motion for summary judgment on its indemnification claim and otherwise affirming the order. The court found issues of fact regarding the existence and retroactivity of an indemnification agreement between Americon and Liberty, despite Liberty procuring insurance consistent with subsequently executed terms and conditions.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentPurchase Order DisputesRetroactive ApplicationWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Third-Party PracticeAppellate DivisionIssues of FactDemolition AccidentsInsurance Coverage
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04932
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2019

Mendez v. Vardaris Tech, Inc.

Guido Mendez, a foreman, was injured by a falling light fixture during asbestos removal and sued the general contractor, Vardaris Tech, Inc., alleging Labor Law violations and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment for the defendant on claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, concluding the defendant lacked control or notice of the dangerous condition. However, the court modified the order, denying summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, as the defendant failed to demonstrate the inapplicability or non-violation of relevant Industrial Code provisions or that such violations were not a proximate cause of the accident.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionAsbestos RemovalIndustrial Code ViolationsFalling Object InjuryGeneral Contractor Liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mendez v. HRH Construction Co.

The plaintiff, Robert Mendez, an electrician, sustained injuries after falling 20 feet through an unguarded hole on the 14th floor of a construction site. He moved for partial summary judgment against HRH Construction Company, Inc. under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1), finding that the 14th floor of a construction site is an elevated work site and that an unguarded hole presents the same hazard as a roof-top hole. However, the court denied summary judgment under Labor Law § 241(6) due to existing material issues of fact regarding reasonable protection and comparative negligence. All defendant cross-motions were denied.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241Summary JudgmentElevated Work SiteUnguarded OpeningAbsolute LiabilityProximate CauseComparative Negligence
References
9
Case No. ADJ6713391
Regular
Aug 15, 2013

PEDRO TELLO MENDEZ vs. MISSION FOODS GRUMA CORPORATION, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the initial May 30, 2013 decision. The Board amended the decision to reflect that the defendant, Mission Foods Gruma Corporation, is estopped from opposing the applicant's petition for costs. Consequently, the applicant's Petition for Costs is now granted. The rest of the original decision remains affirmed.

Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationEstoppelPetition for CostsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJMission Foods Gruma CorporationTravelers Property Casualty CompanyPedro Tello MendezAmended Decision
References
0
Case No. 533982
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Henry G. Lopez Mendez

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the effective cancellation of an employer's insurance policy. Claimant, Henry G. Lopez Mendez, was injured while working for TGA Construction, LLC. The core issue was whether Merchants Mutual Insurance Company had properly canceled the employer's policy due to non-payment before the accident, thereby making the employer uninsured. The Board, after full review, found the carrier failed to strictly comply with the notice requirements for cancellation under Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the carrier's proof of mailing was insufficient to establish a nexus with the cancellation notice.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CancellationNon-paymentStatutory ComplianceNotice RequirementsCertified MailAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardPolicy LapseEmployer Liability
References
15
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05569 [209 AD3d 1078]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

Matter of Mendez v. TGA Constr., LLC

Henry G. Lopez Mendez was severely injured in a fall while working for TGA Construction, LLC. The central dispute involved whether Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, the employer's workers' compensation carrier, had effectively canceled its policy due to non-payment before the accident, as per Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5). Initially, a WCLJ ruled the policy was canceled, making the employer uninsured. However, upon full Board review, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding the carrier failed to meet the strict statutory requirements for policy cancellation and thus was liable. The carrier appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the carrier did not establish proper compliance with the cancellation notice requirements, specifically regarding certified mail, return receipt requested, and connecting the notice to the proof of mailing.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Policy CancellationNon-payment of PremiumsEmployer LiabilityStatutory ComplianceAppellate ReviewBoard Panel ReviewUninsured Employer's FundCertified MailReturn Receipt
References
14
Case No. ADJ6581535
Regular
Nov 15, 2017

Angel Mendez vs. Maple Dairy, Zenith Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Angel Mendez's petition for reconsideration. Mendez sought a finding of $100\%$ permanent disability, arguing total loss of use of his dominant right upper extremity. The Board affirmed the WCJ's prior award of $75\%$ permanent disability, finding no presumption of total disability for the loss of use of only one hand. The evidence did not support a finding of total loss of use of the upper extremity.

Petition for ReconsiderationPermanent Disability ApportionmentVocational EvidenceDominant Upper ExtremityLoss of UsePresumption of Permanent Total DisabilityLabor Code Section 4662(a)(2)Substantial EvidenceLeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Dairy Worker
References
1
Case No. ADJ1136158 (LBO 0381365)
Regular
Apr 10, 2008

DARIO MENDEZ vs. HAWAIIAN GARDENS CARD CLUB, ST. PAUL TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinded the previous finding, and found that applicant Dario Mendez sustained an industrial injury to his low back and right leg. The WCAB determined that a lifting incident on November 15, 2005, at the Hawaiian Gardens Card Club, contributed to a new injury despite Mendez's pre-existing back condition. They found the applicant's explanation for the delay in reporting the injury credible, and that the evidence supported a new injury rather than merely an exacerbation of a prior condition. The WCAB deferred all other issues, including the extent of the injury and compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJLow Back InjuryRight Leg InjuryPre-existing ConditionAggravationExacerbation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2009

Mendez v. Radec Corp.

Plaintiff Patrick Mendez initiated a class action against his former employer, Radec Corporation, and two officers, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for unpaid wages and retaliatory termination. Defendants sought to decertify the previously certified Rule 23 class, arguing that class counsel was inadequate and that individual issues predominated. The court denied the decertification motion, finding that defendants had waived objections to the procedural timeline of motions. Furthermore, the court determined that class counsel's actions did not amount to inadequacy requiring decertification, and confirmed that common legal and factual questions continued to predominate over individual ones. The decision affirmed the class certification, noting that class members could waive liquidated damages to proceed with Labor Law claims.

Class Action LawFLSALabor Law ClaimsWage and Hour DisputesOvertime CompensationRetaliatory DischargeClass DecertificationRule 23Summary JudgmentAdequacy of Counsel
References
89
Case No. ADJ7182186
Regular

EULISES MENDEZ vs. ALBERTSON'S, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Eulises Mendez's Petition for Reconsideration. This dismissal was based on the principle that reconsideration can only be granted for final orders, not interlocutory procedural rulings. The WCAB clarified that pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, or trial scheduling are not final and thus not subject to reconsideration. The applicant was admonished for filing an improper petition and warned of potential sanctions for future similar conduct.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityNotice of IntentionWCABALJLabor Code 5900
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 124 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