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. ADJ9120523
Regular
Jan 25, 2018

Guillermo Reyes Perez vs. Colorama Wholesale Nursery, Zenith Insurance Company

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case concerns disputed payments for copying services provided by lien claimant Citywide Scanning Services, Inc. The Board granted reconsideration to amend the original decision based on the WCJ's report. While most of the lien claimant's invoices were deemed satisfied due to failure to request a second review after receiving Explanations of Review (EORs), two invoices were specifically addressed. The Board found the defendant failed to provide valid EORs for services related to Colorama Wholesale Nursery and the California Secretary of State. Therefore, the lien claimant is entitled to full payment for these two invoices, less any amounts already paid by the defendant.

EORLabor Code section 4622WCAB Rule 9794(c)Petition for ReconsiderationLien claimantCopying servicesSecond reviewInvoicesDefendant's answerReport and Recommendation
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 08012
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2020

Perez v. Masonry Servs., Inc.

This case, Perez v Masonry Services, Inc., concerns a lawsuit brought by Adrian Perez and others against Masonry Services, Inc. (MSI), Manuel J. Herrera, James Herrera, and Lettire Construction Corp. The plaintiffs alleged a breach of contract to pay prevailing wages, as mandated by the Davis-Bacon Act, for work on a federally financed construction project. The Supreme Court, New York County, found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them joint and several damages. The court also permitted Lettire Construction Corp. to assert alter ego and veil piercing claims against MSI, Manuel, and James. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that the record supported the finding that Manuel and James abused the corporate form to avoid wage payments and that joint and several liability was properly imposed.

Prevailing WageDavis-Bacon ActBreach of ContractAlter EgoVeil PiercingJoint and Several LiabilityConstruction ProjectCorporate Form AbusePayroll RecordsDamages Award
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hunter v. Perez Interboro Asphalt Co.

Plaintiff Jacqueline Hunter was injured when a construction barricade timber rolled onto her foot. She sued Goodkind & O’Dea (G&O), the engineering inspection contractor, and Perez Interboro Asphalt Company (Perez), the prime contractor, alleging negligence. The Supreme Court denied G&O's motion for summary judgment but granted Perez's motion. On appeal, the court modified the order, denying Perez's summary judgment motion and reinstating the complaint against Perez. The denial of G&O's motion for summary judgment was affirmed.

construction accidentpersonal injurysummary judgmentappellate reviewnegligencecontractual dutybarricade safetyengineering contractorprime contractorNew York County Supreme Court
References
9
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07864
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2016

Perez v. Gateway Realty LLC

Plaintiff Rafael Perez, a superintendent, suffered neck and back injuries while moving a heavy elevator motor at a building owned by Gateway Realty LLC. The injury occurred when a dolly wheel became stuck in a sidewalk crack, requiring Perez to lift the dolly. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Gateway Realty LLC, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the decision, concluding that the action was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law due to an established employee/employer relationship between Perez and Gateway Realty LLC, and Perez's receipt of workers' compensation benefits.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionEmployer-Employee RelationshipProperty Owner LiabilityPersonal InjurySidewalk DefectLabor LawAffirmed DecisionSuperintendent
References
3
Case No. 536000
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2024

Matter of Elhannon Wholesale Nursery, Inc. (Commissioner of Labor)

Elhannon Wholesale Nursery, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found the company liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions for its H-2A agricultural workers from 2014 to 2016. The contributions included remuneration for housing and utilities provided to these workers. Elhannon argued for the retroactive application of a 2019 amendment to Labor Law § 564, which excluded H-2A workers from the definition of "employment," but the court found no clear legislative intent for retroactivity. The company also challenged the Board's authority to assess contributions for workers ineligible for benefits and disputed the valuation of housing and utility remuneration. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that an employer's obligation to pay contributions is independent of employee eligibility for benefits and upholding the Commissioner's method for calculating remuneration.

Unemployment InsuranceH-2A WorkersAgricultural LaborRetroactive ApplicationStatutory InterpretationLabor LawPayroll TaxEmployer ContributionsRemuneration ValuationHousing Benefits
References
15
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00629 [168 AD3d 1112]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2019

Ramos-Perez v. Evelyn USA, LLC

Felipe Ramos-Perez was injured while unloading flooring materials from a truck at a construction site. A hydraulic lift was used to lower heavy pallets, one of which fell and struck the plaintiff. Ramos-Perez commenced an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) against the property owners, Robert Soha Retail, LLC, and Soha Retail Equities, LLC (the Soha defendants). The Supreme Court initially granted the Soha defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Ramos-Perez's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the failure to provide an appropriate safety device, which was the proximate cause of the injury. Therefore, the Appellate Division denied the Soha defendants' motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability.

construction accidentpersonal injuryLabor Lawsummary judgmentliabilityhydraulic liftfalling objectproximate causesafety deviceAppellate Division
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Brookdale University Hospital & Medical Center

Eulalia Perez was admitted to Brookdale University Hospital on November 16, 2010, and treated for various medical conditions before being discharged on December 7. She died two days later. Her family, Ivan and Irma Perez, sued Brookdale and other defendants, alleging a violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and state-law claims of wrongful death and negligence. The court granted Brookdale's motion for summary judgment on the EMTALA claim, determining that the hospital fulfilled its EMTALA duties once Mrs. Perez was stabilized, and any subsequent issues were outside the statute's scope. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, leading to the dismissal of all claims against all parties.

EMTALAEmergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor ActMedical MalpracticeNegligenceWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentSupplemental JurisdictionPatient DumpingHospital DischargeFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duane Reads Inc. v. Local 338 Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union

Duane Reade Inc. sued Local 338 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and its officers for defamation following a heated labor dispute. The union had published allegedly libelous statements on a website, press releases, and flyers concerning Duane Reade's business practices and treatment of workers. Duane Reade contended that the union as a whole should be held accountable or, alternatively, that the officers acted outside their official capacities. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, citing the long-standing New York rule from Martin v Curran, which requires unanimous member ratification for suits against unincorporated unions. Furthermore, the court determined that the cause of action was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because the union's communications were related to a protected labor dispute and did not meet the malice standard required to overcome preemption, also noting the republication privilege.

DefamationLabor DisputeUnion LiabilityNational Labor Relations ActNLRA PreemptionMartin v CurranFreedom of SpeechLibelImplied AgencyNew York Law
References
12
Case No. 11 Civ. 8655(RWS)
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Plaintiff Ada Perez, a police officer for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), filed an amended complaint against the MTA and two officers, D’Agostino and Olshanetskiy, alleging violations of her Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights related to compulsory urine tests during her employment. Perez, on restricted duty after an injury and not carrying a firearm, argued she was not in a safety-sensitive position and therefore not subject to random drug testing per an MTA agreement. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion, dismissing municipal claims against the MTA due to lack of a valid § 1983 claim but allowing the unreasonable search and seizure claims to proceed based on new factual allegations regarding the MTA-Police Benevolent Association Memorandum of Agreement. The court dismissed the due process claims, finding no deprivation of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest.

Fourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentUnreasonable Search and SeizureDue ProcessMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Municipal LiabilityMonell ClaimDrug Testing
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 20,591 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