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. 2025 NY Slip Op 06399 [243 AD3d 514]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

Ward v. Times Sq. Hotel Owner LLC

Plaintiff Martin Joseph Ward was injured after slipping and falling on an ice condition near a ninth-floor landing of a cement staircase. He subsequently moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (d), against Times Square Hotel Owner LLC. The Supreme Court granted his motion. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of a Labor Law § 241 (6) violation. Defendants failed to raise a triable issue to rebut plaintiff's testimony regarding the ice condition. The court also noted that a general contractor's liability under Labor Law § 241 (6) is not contingent on notice of the dangerous condition.

Slipping HazardsStairway AccidentIce ConditionIndustrial Code ViolationGeneral Contractor LiabilitySummary JudgmentLabor Law § 241(6)Premises LiabilityAppellate DivisionWorker Injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ9816268 (MF) ADJ9816270
Regular
Oct 24, 2018

ANTHONY MOORE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought to raise issues of permanent disability overpayment and credit between two claims, a specific left shoulder injury and a cumulative trauma injury. The Board found that these issues were not raised during the mandatory settlement conference or at trial, and therefore could not be considered for the first time on reconsideration due to a lack of due process. The defendant had ample opportunity and information to raise these issues earlier but failed to do so, making their claim of mutual mistake invalid.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and AwardLabor Code section 4850permanent disabilitytemporary total disabilitycumulative traumaspecific injurypetition for reconsiderationmandatory settlement conferencepre-trial conference statement
References
12
Case No. ADJ9146002
Regular
Aug 28, 2017

JESUS HERNANDEZ vs. MARTINEZ PAINTING, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, PATRIOT RISK SERVICES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by a lien claimant, Citywide Scanning Service, regarding the reasonableness of their charges. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the Administrative Law Judge's report. The Board found that the lien claimant waived the issue of timely objection by failing to raise it at trial. Furthermore, no evidence was presented to support a determination of timeliness, and the issue could not be raised for the first time on reconsideration.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantTimeliness of ObjectionPenaltiesInterestWCJ ReportWaiverLabor Code 5502(d)(3)Reasonableness of Charges
References
2
Case No. ADJ8590622
Regular
Mar 16, 2017

MICHAEL BAKER vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; Permissibly SelfInsured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Los Angeles' petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the finding that applicant Michael Baker sustained an industrial cumulative trauma injury to multiple body parts, including hearing loss and skin disorders, over his employment as a police officer. The defendant's attempt to raise the issue of separate dates of injury under Labor Code section 5412 for these conditions for the first time at trial was deemed waived. This failure to timely raise the issue prevented the applicant from responding and was not adequately addressed in pre-trial statements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Los AngelesPermissibly Self-InsuredMichael BakerIndustrial cumulative trauma injuryPolice officerBilateral hearing lossTinnitusCervical spineLumbar spine
References
1
Case No. ADJ4141215 (MON 0288595) ADJ4160601 (MON 0288596) ADJ2249717 (MON 0300098)
Regular
Dec 27, 2011

DOREEN LABOY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND / STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, finding their argument regarding AMA Guidelines irrelevant due to a prior stipulation to the 1997 Rating Schedule. The WCAB granted removal to issue notices of intention to impose sanctions and award attorney's fees/costs against the defendant and their counsel. This action is based on the defendant's frivolous and bad-faith tactics in raising an issue for the first time on reconsideration that was not previously litigated or argued. The defendant's petition is deemed without merit and solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

LABOYDOREENSTATE OF CALIFORNIADEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTHSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDJOINT FINDINGS AND AWARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONREMOVALNOTICES OF INTENTIONORDER TO PAY EXPENSES
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox News Network, L.L.C. v. Time Warner Inc.

This case arises from a dispute between Time Warner and Fox concerning Time Warner's decision not to carry Fox News on its New York City cable channels. Fox initially sued Time Warner, prompting Time Warner to file counterclaims alleging that Fox conspired with New York City officials to unlawfully coerce Time Warner into carrying Fox News. Time Warner's counterclaims assert violations of its First Amendment and Due Process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and tortious interference with contractual relations. Fox moved to dismiss these counterclaims, arguing that its actions were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which generally shields lobbying activities. The court denied Fox's motion, concluding that Time Warner had adequately alleged a conspiracy and that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine might not apply if Fox's conduct was found to be illegal or corrupt, thus allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

First Amendment RightsDue ProcessSection 1983Noerr-Pennington DoctrineCable ActAntitrustLobbyingFreedom of SpeechConspiracyMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. ADJ1167311 (LBO 0303498) ADJ749429 (LBO 0296277)
Regular
Apr 29, 2011

RAMON ZIEBA vs. BAILLY SHOWCASE, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied lien claimant Dr. Halote's petition for reconsideration. Dr. Halote sought reimbursement for psychiatric treatment, arguing it was separate from a psychiatric injury claim. However, the only issue presented at trial was whether the applicant sustained a psychiatric injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment. The Board found that the issue of the reasonableness of psychiatric treatment, for admitted orthopedic injuries, was not raised at trial and was therefore waived. Thus, the Board denied reconsideration as Dr. Halote could not raise this new issue for the first time on appeal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardpsychiatric injuryAOE/COElien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factadministrative law judgeLabor Codecompensabilitypsychiatric treatment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2011

Baisch, Inc. v. Pike Co.

This case is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which denied the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on its counterclaim for breach of a construction contract. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff failed to perform in a timely manner, provide adequate labor and materials, and abandoned the contract. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding that issues of fact existed regarding what constituted a reasonable time for performance when the contract did not specify it, and the adequacy of labor and materials supplied by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court determined there was an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff's actions constituted an unqualified and clear refusal to perform the entire contract, which would be considered an anticipatory repudiation. The court also declined to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.

construction contractbreach of contractsummary judgmenttimely performanceadequate labor and materialsanticipatory repudiationcontract abandonmentappellate reviewissues of factcontract interpretation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Twenty First Century L.P.I v. LaBianca

This case involves Twenty First Century L.P.I and Twenty First Century L.P.II, owners of McDonald's franchises, suing several defendants for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and RICO violations. The defendants, including former employees Michael Malpiedi and Richard Redzinski, engaged in a scheme to embezzle millions by submitting inflated invoices for construction work and receiving kickbacks. The court granted partial summary judgment, finding all listed defendants liable for common law fraud and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. Malpiedi and Redzinski were also found liable for breach of fiduciary duty. Additionally, Malpiedi, Redzinski, Stephen Delli Bovi, and Delli Bovi Construction Corporation were held liable for civil RICO damages. However, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding Angelo Vignola's and D & D Electric's RICO liability was denied, leaving that issue for trial.

FraudEmbezzlementKickbacksRICOBreach of Fiduciary DutySummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelMail FraudWire FraudInterstate Commerce
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 13,748 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