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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaur v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Harbans Kaur alleged hostile work environment and wrongful termination due to national origin discrimination and retaliation by New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. It found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for disparate treatment or retaliation, citing a lack of causal connection and insufficient evidence against defendant's non-discriminatory reasons. The court also concluded that the hostile work environment claim lacked sufficiently severe or pervasive incidents, and co-worker conduct could not be imputed to the employer. State and city law claims were dismissed under similar reasoning, even with the city law's broader interpretation.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawFederal Courts
References
86
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06968 [188 AD3d 614]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2020

Pina v. Arthur Clinton Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

Plaintiff Mario Ortiz Pina appealed the denial of his motion for summary judgment on a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The claim was based on an alleged violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (d) due to a slippery worksite condition. The motion was denied by the Supreme Court, Bronx County, because the plaintiff's own conflicting accounts of the accident, along with witness testimony and inconsistent Workers' Compensation Board submissions, raised a triable issue of fact regarding the cause of his injuries. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the conflicting evidence precluded summary judgment and necessitated a trial to determine how the accident occurred and whether a wet surface was a proximate cause.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeSlip and FallConflicting TestimonyInconsistent AccountsProximate CauseWorkers' CompensationMedical RecordsHearsay
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaur v. 1715 Avenue T Realty, LLC

Narinder Kaur, along with her husband, sought damages for personal injuries sustained when a staircase landing collapsed in a building owned by 1715 Avenue T Realty, LLC, during renovation work performed by Triple M Construction, Inc. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of Triple M Construction, Inc.'s liability, arguing their work was the proximate cause of the collapse. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially granted this motion. However, upon appeal by Triple M Construction, Inc., the appellate court found conflicting evidence regarding whether Triple M's work was indeed the proximate cause of the collapse. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against Triple M Construction, Inc., and dismissed other appeals.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentsContractor NegligenceProximate CauseStaircase CollapseProperty Owner LiabilityKings County
References
4
Case No. ADJ13900666
Regular
Aug 01, 2025

German Renteria Pina vs. Miguel Diaz dba Brother Landscape, Da Vinci Schools

German Renteria Pina, the applicant, sustained a specific injury while employed by Miguel Diaz dba Brother Landscape, an uninsured entity. Da Vinci Schools, a permissibly self-insured entity, was also named as a defendant. The Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) petitioned for reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that Pina was an employee of Diaz and not Da Vinci, arguing errors in employment burden of proof and insufficient evidence. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior Findings of Fact and Order, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. This decision was made because the record was deemed incomplete to adequately determine Diaz's independent contractor status or the applicability of licensing requirements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundMiguel Diaz dba Brother LandscapeDa Vinci SchoolsAdjudication NumberPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderWCJBurden of ProofUltimate Hirer
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaur v. Royal Arcadia Palace, Inc.

This case involves employees of Malabar Palace restaurant suing Royal Arcadia Palace and its owners for various labor law violations, fraud, and breach of contract after Malabar closed and Royal Arcadia opened in the same location. Plaintiffs allege Royal Arcadia is a successor entity created to avoid Malabar's debts, and that defendants were partners in Malabar and responsible for unpaid wages, overtime, and loans. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of FLSA coverage, employer status, statute of limitations, statute of frauds, and agency. The court denied summary judgment for most claims and most plaintiffs, except for dismissing Plaintiff Vimla, dismissing breach of contract for back-wages, and granting breach of contract for loans for all plaintiffs except Manjit.

FLSANYLLWage and HourOvertime PayMinimum WageSuccessor LiabilityFraudBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentPartnership Law
References
36
Case No. ADJ10140966
Regular
Jun 09, 2016

KAMAL KAILLAY vs. LIDHAR TRANSPORT, INC., PINA KAUR, KARANJIT SINGH, CALIFORNIA UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant employers' Petition for Reconsideration because it was unverified, a requirement under Labor Code section 5902. The employers sought to challenge a prior Finding and Award that determined the applicant sustained a work injury while employed by them while they were illegally uninsured. Even if the Petition had been properly verified, the WCAB would have denied it on the merits, adopting the WCJ's recommendation. The WCAB also noted additional procedural violations regarding attached documents and a supplemental filing.

Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust FundPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardVerified PleadingsLabor Code Section 5902Appeals Board Rule 10842Appeals Board Rule 10848Report and RecommendationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeDismissed Petition
References
1
Case No. ADJ 6962762, ADJ4127525 (SBR 0330147), ADJ9551358
Regular
Feb 19, 2016

HARMEET KAUR vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

The applicant filed two petitions challenging orders compelling attendance at a deposition and a PQME. The Appeals Board dismissed the first petition as it sought reconsideration of a non-final order. The Board then granted removal on the second petition, setting aside the order compelling the PQME attendance due to potential prejudice from an alleged agreed medical evaluation. Reconsideration was denied for both petitions as they addressed interlocutory matters.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling DepositionOrder Compelling PQMEWCJAgreed Medical Evaluation (AME)Interlocutory OrderFinal OrderRule 10859
References
7
Case No. ADJ6800080
Regular
Mar 20, 2012

PINA ALICIA RODRIGUEZ vs. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES

The WCAB granted reconsideration to clarify evidentiary issues regarding the applicant's industrial injury. The primary issues to be developed are whether the treating physician was within a valid Medical Provider Network (MPN) or if proper notice was given, and whether the physician's opinions constitute substantial evidence given an inadequate medical history. Additionally, the WCAB requires further development of the record regarding the applicant's refusal of modified work and conflicting testimony about her voluntary resignation, which impacts temporary disability entitlement.

MPN noticeself-procured medical treatmenttemporary disabilitysubstantial medical evidencequalified medical evaluatorconcurrent employmentnon-industrial injurymodified workdeposition testimonytrial testimony
References
11
Case No. ADJ2969856 (SAL 0073653)
Regular
Apr 01, 2009

PINA vs. MEYER TOMATORES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, INTERCARE

This case involves a defendant seeking reconsideration of findings that they failed to respond to a request for an epidural injection authorization and that a treating physician provided reasonable and necessary care. The Board dismissed a second petition concerning a WCJ's report, deeming it not a final order. The Board granted reconsideration of the initial petition solely to order the defendant to authorize the epidural injection. All other aspects of the original award were affirmed.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationEpidural InjectionReasonable and Necessary TreatmentUtilization ReviewBoard Rule §10510Floyd Skeren & KellyWCJ Report and RecommendationFinal OrderAggrieved Party
References
1
Case No. SRO 0130264
Regular
Nov 26, 2007

JAIME RUBIO vs. PINA VINEYARD MANAGEMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Med-Legal, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration, reversing the administrative law judge's dismissal of its lien due to improper notice of trial. The Board denied the defendant's and applicant's petitions, finding the defendant's request to alter an earlier stipulation regarding the injured body part was untimely and without good cause. The case is remanded for further proceedings concerning Med-Legal's deferred lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityReconsiderationLien ClaimMedical-Legal ExpenseStipulationNotice of HearingServiceOfficial Address Record
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 14 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