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. 2015 NY Slip Op 08142 [133 AD3d 626]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2015

Cardenas v. BBM Construction Corp.

The plaintiff, Jose Cardenas, was injured while installing a 500-pound beam, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) against BBM Construction Corp., the general contractor. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing both causes of action for BBM Construction and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, affirming the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim because the injury was not due to an elevation-related hazard. However, it reversed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, which was predicated on an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-2.3 (a), as BBM Construction failed to prima facie demonstrate its inapplicability or non-violation. The plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was denied due to remaining factual issues.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Industrial Code 23-2.3(a)Summary JudgmentElevation-Related HazardHoistScaffoldAppellate Division
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jimenez v. Estate of Jimenez

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Julio Jimenez, while operating a grocery business owned by the estate of his deceased brother Roberto, was murdered. Julio's wife, Amparo Jimenez, filed for workers' compensation benefits for herself and their three minor children. The Board found an employer-employee relationship existed between Julio and Roberto's estate, a decision contested by the Uninsured Employers’ Fund. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the estate, by accepting the benefits of Julio's efforts, was estopped from denying an employment relationship.

Employment RelationshipEstate LiabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsHomicideUninsured Employers' FundAppellate ReviewEstoppelDependent BenefitsBusiness OperationVolunteer Services
References
1
Case No. ADJ6413647
Regular
Jul 13, 2015

CESAR CARDENAS vs. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Cesar Cardenas' Petition for Reconsideration because it failed to provide specific citations to the record as required by their rules. The Board also noted the petition was not verified, which is a separate grounds for dismissal. Even if these procedural defects were overlooked, the petition would have been denied on the merits based on the WCJ's report. The WCJ's report detailed the applicant's claims and the medical evidence presented, which supported the original Findings and Award of 6% permanent disability.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10842(b)Specific CitationsRecord SupportLabor Code Section 5902Petition VerificationIn Propria PersonaFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityMedical Evidence
References
6
Case No. ADJ1417978 (STK 0211694)
Regular
Dec 03, 2012

ROBERTO MANZO vs. MCCARTHY BUILDING COMPANIES, CHARTIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The applicant, Roberto Manzo, sought reconsideration of the finding that he was laid off due to lack of work, not as retaliation for his injury claim, and therefore no violation of Labor Code § 132a occurred. The WCAB adopted the findings of the workers' compensation judge, who found ample evidence to support the conclusion of a layoff due to lack of work, not discrimination. The Board gave great weight to the judge's credibility determinations based on the evidence presented.

WCABReconsiderationLabor Code § 132aCarpenterInjuryMcCarthy Building CompaniesChartisWorkers' Compensation JudgeFindings of FactPermanent Disability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Regent Leasing Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Roberto Cruz commenced an action against Regent Leasing Limited Partnership for personal injuries sustained during a slip and fall. Cruz, a superintendent, was an employee of Mid-State Management Corp., hired by Regent Leasing to manage the property. Defendant Regent Leasing moved for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusivity of workers' compensation benefits precluded the action, suggesting plaintiff should be deemed their employee. The court denied the motion, finding no employer-employee or co-employer relationship between Cruz and Regent Leasing. The decision clarified that merely hiring an employer to manage premises does not establish an employer-employee relationship within the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Slip and FallPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCo-EmployerManaging AgentLandowner LiabilityPremises Liability
References
17
Case No. ADJ6957361
Regular
Jan 12, 2012

ROBERTO BARAJAS vs. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration by Fresno Unified School District regarding a workers' compensation award for Roberto Barajas. The District challenged the permanent disability rating, arguing the Agreed Medical Examiner improperly included grip strength loss alongside range of motion limitations, contrary to AMA Guides guidelines. Additionally, the District contested a 10% penalty for delayed permanent disability advances and sought a reduction in benefits based on an offer of regular work. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's findings on the permanent disability rating by finding the AME appropriately applied *Almaraz/Guzman II* principles for calculating impairment. The Board also upheld the penalty for delayed advances and rejected the District's claim regarding work offer reductions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFresno Unified School DistrictRoberto BarajasFindings of Fact and Awardpermanent disabilityright wrist injuryright hand injuryright finger injurygroundskeeper/gardenerLabor Code section 4650
References
3
Case No. ADJ203059
Regular
Oct 05, 2012

KIRK CARDENAS vs. WARNER BROS. STUDIO FACILITIES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Warner Bros.' Petition for Reconsideration. The employer sought to overturn a finding that the applicant, Kirk Cardenas, injured his neck in a fall. The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) report, which found the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) opinion on the neck injury to be substantial medical evidence. The ALJ reasoned that the AME's opinion, despite some gaps in medical records, was based on a reasonable medical probability and that Warner Bros. had not provided sufficient reason to reject it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical Examinersubstantial medical evidenceneck injuryFall from ladderJourneyman sign painterLawrence Feiwell M.D.upper trapezius atrophyrhomboid region
References
3
Case No. ADJ10153514 ADJ10605281
Regular
Sep 30, 2019

ROBERTO CARDENAS vs. SANTA ISABEL ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a VALLARTA, SAFETY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant alleging a specific injury to his right wrist, hand, and shoulder from a machine malfunction. The original Findings and Orders denied the claim, finding the applicant not credible, particularly due to discrepancies with a First Aid and Injury Notice. The Appeals Board rescinded this decision, finding that the WCJ failed to address the credible testimony of a eyewitness. The matter was returned for further proceedings to clarify evidence and credibility issues.

ADJ10153514ADJ10605281ROBERTO CARDENASSANTA ISABEL ENTERPRISESVALLARTASAFETY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANYHAZELRIGG CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICESWORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDOPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONFindings and Orders
References
5
Case No. ADJ10190746 ADJ10190618
Regular
Aug 24, 2018

JOSE CARDENAS vs. A&M PROPERTIES, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST GROUP

In *Cardenas v. A&M Properties*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a defendant's Petition for Removal. The WCAB found the petition deficient because it was unsigned and unverified, violating WCAB rules. Furthermore, the accompanying proof of service was also unsigned, which is a valid ground for summary dismissal. Consequently, the WCAB ordered the Petition for Removal dismissed.

Petition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10843(b)WCAB Rule 10450(e)WCAB Rule 10450(f)WCAB Rule 10850unsigned petitionunverified petitionproof of servicesummarily dismissingoff calendar
References
0
Case No. ADJ3855232
Regular
Mar 18, 2011

ROBERTO BARRERO vs. KNUDSEN'S DAIRY CORPORATION, FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Roberto Barrero's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report. This denial means the previous decision stands. No further details of the original decision are provided here.

ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATIONWORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDKNUDSEN'S DAIRY CORPORATIONFIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANYADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGEPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONADJ3855232LAO 0400735BENTHALE MCKIBBIN MCKNIGHTROBERTO BARRERO
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 87 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