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. ADJ784749 (AHM 0115079)
Regular
Aug 02, 2010

Carlos Bautista vs. Prime Factors, Inc., Factory Filament, Inc., Isaac Powell, Uninsured Employers Fund

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Carlos Bautista for an industrial injury to his spine sustained in November 2003. The applicant was hired in California by Prime Factors Inc., an illegally uninsured employer, and then flown to Mississippi for a job. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is denying Isaac Powell's petition for reconsideration of prior findings. These findings established California's jurisdiction, the employer's uninsured status, and the applicant's industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPrime FactorsInc.Isaac PowellUninsured Employers FundIndustrial InjuryCervical SpineThoracic SpineLumbar SpineLabor Code Section 5900
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03161 [184 AD3d 927]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2020

Matter of Simon v. Mehadrin Prime

Claimant Jose Luis Simon, a bicycle delivery worker, sought workers' compensation benefits for work-related injuries. After a WCLJ decision awarded continuing benefits, the employer and its carrier, Mehadrin Prime, appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board denied their application for review, citing non-compliance with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) due to their failure to specify when objections were interposed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the application for review.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewProcedural ComplianceBoard RegulationsApplication for ReviewDenial of ReviewLabor Market AttachmentTemporary Partial DisabilityWCLJ DecisionThird Department
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2001

Akgul v. Prime Time Transportation, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by Prime Time Transportation, Inc., and its principals, from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County. The plaintiffs, a group of drivers, alleged breach of franchise agreements and violations of Labor Law article 6, contending they were employees. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the employee status issue, giving preclusive effect to a prior NLRB determination. The appellate court ruled that the Supreme Court erred in applying collateral estoppel to the NLRB's ultimate conclusion on employee status, as it constituted a mixed question of law and fact imbued with policy considerations. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order by deleting the provision granting the cross-motion and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for a redetermination of employee status under Labor Law article 6. Additionally, the court granted Prime Time's motion to dismiss the fourth and seventh causes of action related to fraudulent inducement and breach of an assurance of discontinuance, respectively, but affirmed the denial of dismissal for the fifth cause of action under General Business Law § 349.

Breach of contractLabor LawEmployee statusIndependent contractorSummary judgmentCollateral estoppelAdministrative agenciesNational Labor Relations BoardFranchise agreementsAppellate review
References
20
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02238 [226 AD3d 1280]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2024

Matter of Bosque v. Prime Support Inc.

Annette Bosque, a home health care aide, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after falling in a patient's home, sustaining a subarachnoid hemorrhage, central cord syndrome, and mild traumatic brain injury. The employer and its carrier controverted the claim but lost certain defenses by failing to file a prehearing conference statement. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found the injuries work-related and awarded benefits. The carrier appealed, arguing the injuries were not due to a risk incident to employment and that claimant failed to establish a compensable accident. The Workers' Compensation Board disagreed, finding compensable work-related injuries. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, noting the carrier was precluded from arguing the injuries did not arise out of and in the course of employment and that the statutory presumption of compensability for unwitnessed or unexplained accidents occurring during employment was not rebutted by the carrier's speculative assertion of an idiopathic cause.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentStatutory PresumptionUnwitnessed AccidentIdiopathic FallSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewHome Health Care Aide
References
12
Case No. CV-23-1834
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

Matter of Gunness v. Prime Piping & Heating Inc.

Claimant Arnold Gunness appealed a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board denying his claim for causally-related injuries to his neck, back, and left knee. Gunness initially filed a claim for a right foot fracture sustained in June 2020. Later, he filed a second claim alleging additional injuries to his neck, back, and left knee due to an altered gait and cane usage following the foot injury. Medical opinions conflicted; a podiatrist's opinion was disregarded, and a physiatrist's opinion on causation was deemed unpersuasive due to claimant's inconsistent accounts and lack of understanding of the mechanism of injury for the additional body parts. An orthopedic surgeon also could not establish a causal connection. The WCLJ and the Board found that the claimant failed to establish a causal connection, citing a lack of credible medical evidence and the claimant's inconsistent accounts. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence.

CausationWorkers' CompensationInjury ClaimMedical EvidenceCredibility DeterminationBoard AuthorityAppellate ReviewAltered GaitRight Foot FractureNeck Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guzelgurgenli v. Prime Time Specials Inc.

Plaintiffs Cemil Gurkan Guzelgurgenli, Hasan Kasikci, and Bilal Habes Kasikci filed a collective action suit against Prime Time Specials Inc. and Christopher Hanley for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York State Labor Law regarding unpaid overtime and spread-of-hours compensation. They moved for conditional certification of a class of employees. The court granted conditional certification for delivery drivers, in-store hourly employees, and assistant store managers at six specific Domino's locations (Holbrook, Coram, Sayville, Patchogue, Stony Brook, and Centereach), finding a 'modest factual showing' of a common illegal policy. However, certification was denied for 'store managers' and employees at two other disputed locations (Smithtown and Miller Place). The court also set a three-year notice period and a 60-day opt-in period but denied the request for a reminder notice.

FLSANY Labor LawConditional CertificationCollective ActionOvertime CompensationUnpaid WagesAssistant ManagersDelivery DriversHourly EmployeesWage and Hour Dispute
References
45
Case No. CV-23-0221
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Annette Bosque

Annette Bosque, a home health care aide, sustained severe injuries, including a subarachnoid hemorrhage and spinal cord injuries, after falling in a patient's home. She filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which the employer, Prime Support Inc., and its carrier controverted. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the injuries to be work-related and awarded benefits. The carrier appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board, which affirmed the WCLJ's decision. On further appeal to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, the carrier's arguments were rejected. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and relying on the statutory presumption of compensability for unwitnessed or unexplained accidents occurring during the course of employment.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentWorkers' Compensation Law § 21(1)Presumption of CompensabilityUnwitnessed AccidentEmployer's DefensesPrehearing Conference StatementSubstantial Evidence Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 1995

Leonard v. Unisys Corp.

Linda M. Leonard suffered severe back injuries in 1987 due to a defective office chair, leading to a lawsuit against her employer (Department of Motor Vehicles) and the chair's sellers/manufacturers (Human Factor Technologies, Inc., Burroughs Corporation, Standard Register Company, and Unisys Corporation). The lawsuit alleged negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty. A jury found certain defendants strictly liable and apportioned fault, awarding significant damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium to Leonard and her husband. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's order and judgment, upholding the jury's verdict, the damage awards, and the denial of indemnification claims between defendants, while rejecting challenges to jury instructions and evidentiary rulings.

Products liabilityBreach of warrantyNegligenceIndemnification claimLoss of consortium damagesPain and suffering awardJury verdict reviewApportionment of liabilitySuccessor corporation liabilityDefective chair
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1987

Richmond Memorial Hospital & Health Center v. Axelrod

The petitioner, a hospital not a member of the League of Voluntary Hospitals, sought to increase its 1983 third-party reimbursement rates from the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health. This application was based on a 'trend factor' applicable to League members, stemming from a collective bargaining agreement which the petitioner also adopted. The Commissioner denied the request, citing the petitioner's non-membership in the League. The Supreme Court annulled this determination, directing the use of the League trend factor. On appeal, the judgment was modified: the annulment of the Commissioner's arbitrary determination was affirmed, but the direction to use the specific trend factor was deleted, and the case was remitted for recalculation based on permissible factors.

CPLR Article 78Third-Party Reimbursement RatesTrend FactorMedicaid RatesBlue Cross RatesWorkers' Compensation RatesNo-Fault RatesPublic Health LawArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. ADJ6677398
Regular
Apr 04, 2013

ROSA SILLAS vs. QUICK CREATIONS USA, GALLAGHER BASSETT

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Prime Medical Resources on behalf of certain lien claimants concerning Rosa Sillas' workers' compensation claim. The Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's report which found that Prime Medical Resources lacked standing as they were not the attorneys or representatives of record for the lien claimants. Furthermore, the petition was improperly filed and included extraneous documents, violating Board rules. Prime Medical Resources was admonished for these procedural missteps.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJBoard Rule 10550Rule 10842(c)Lien ClaimantCompromise & ReleasePetition for dismissalAdmonishEAMS
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 881 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