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. E2014-01612-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2015

Ewin B. Jenkins v. Big City Remodeling

Ewin B. Jenkins and Janet Jenkins (Owners) sued their general contractor, Big City Remodeling, and flooring subcontractors after their newly constructed home was destroyed by fire. The Owners alleged negligence, relying partly on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Big City Remodeling on claims of its own negligence and res ipsa loquitur, finding no exclusive control of the premises. However, the court reversed summary judgment for the flooring subcontractors on the negligence claim, citing genuine issues of material fact regarding causation by circumstantial evidence. Additionally, the court reversed summary judgment for Big City Remodeling on the breach of contract claim, remanding for a determination on whether Owners' failure to procure insurance constituted a first material breach.

NegligenceRes Ipsa LoquiturBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentConstruction LawFire DamageSubcontractorsAppellate ReviewCausationMaterial Breach
References
42
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03230 [238 AD3d 1441]
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

Matter of Juncal v. Maspeth Remodeling Co.

This case involves an appeal by Maspeth Remodeling Co. and its carrier from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Claimant Miguel Juncal suffered work-related physical injuries and was awarded temporary total disability benefits. The carrier sought to retroactively reduce these benefits after an independent medical examination, citing the 20-day rule for hearings under 12 NYCRR 300.23 (b) (2). The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, holding that benefits should continue at the temporary total disability rate until the hearing date in March 2023. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, clarifying that the 20-day timeframe for scheduling a hearing is directory and aspirational, not mandatory, and the Board's failure to adhere to it does not automatically mandate a reduction or suspension of a claimant's benefits.

Workers' CompensationTemporary DisabilityBenefit ReductionIndependent Medical ExaminationAdministrative Procedure20-Day RuleStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardDisability Benefits
References
5
Case No. 2018-02-0470
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2019

Beck, Brian v. Rickie Neal, d/b/a Neal's Remodeling

Brian Beck sustained a broken heel after falling from a ladder while working for Rickie Neal, d/b/a Neal's Remodeling. Mr. Neal contended that Mr. Beck was an independent contractor and that he jumped, not fell, from the ladder. The Court found Mr. Beck was likely an employee based on statutory factors and that his injury occurred in the course and scope of his work, having fallen while avoiding wasps. Dr. Parr was designated as the authorized physician, and Mr. Neal was ordered to pay for medical treatment and temporary total disability benefits totaling $2,377.13. However, Mr. Beck's request for temporary partial disability benefits was denied due to insufficient evidence of inability to work beyond October 5, 2018.

Workers' Compensation ClaimEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorTemporary Total Disability BenefitsMedical Treatment AuthorizationWork-Related InjuryFall AccidentBroken HeelUninsured EmployerExpedited Hearing
References
2
Case No. 2016-06-1403
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2016

Davenport. Ted v. Advanced Remodeling and Floor Covering LLC

Ted Davenport, an employee of Advanced Remodeling and Floor Covering, LLC, sustained severe injuries to his hand and ribs in a table saw accident during employment. He sought medical and temporary disability benefits after his employer, Aaron Waldrum, refused to pay, claiming Mr. Davenport was a subcontractor and that the company had no workers' compensation insurance. The Court, finding Mr. Davenport to be an employee and the employer uninsured, ruled that Mr. Davenport is likely to prevail on the merits. Consequently, the Court ordered Advanced Remodeling to cover past and ongoing medical expenses and temporary total disability payments, also deeming Mr. Davenport eligible for benefits from the Uninsured Employers Fund due to the employer's non-compliance.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorUninsured EmployerMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityInjury Sustained at WorkTable Saw AccidentThoracotomy
References
7
Case No. 2017-03-0990
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2018

Bielich, Sam v. Jerry Russell, d/b/a Russell Remodeling

This Expedited Hearing Order addresses Sam Bielich's request for medical benefits after he sustained a left knee, leg, and foot injury from a fall through a rotted deck while working for Jerry Russell, d/b/a Russell Remodeling. The employer failed to provide a panel of physicians, pay medical bills, and lacked workers' compensation insurance. The Court adopted the Compliance Officer's findings and determined that Mr. Bielich's injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. Consequently, the Court granted medical benefits, ordering Russell Remodeling to cover past and ongoing treatment and provide a panel of orthopedic physicians. Mr. Bielich was also found eligible for benefits from the Uninsured Employer's Fund.

Expedited HearingMedical BenefitsUninsured EmployerWorkplace FallKnee InjuryCourse and Scope of EmploymentEmployer LiabilityTennessee Workers' CompensationPanel of PhysiciansOrthopedic Treatment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2001

Decavallas v. Pappantoniou

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied their motion to strike the answer of defendants Antonios Pappantoniou and Katherine Pappantoniou, and granted summary judgment to both the Pappantonious and defendant Cambria Home Remodeling Corp. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding no willful or bad faith conduct by the Pappantonious regarding discovery. It was further determined that the Pappantonious, as homeowners, did not direct or control the work to incur liability under Labor Law §§ 240, 241, or 200. Additionally, Cambria Home Remodeling Corp. was granted summary judgment based on the exclusivity of the Workers’ Compensation Law, as the injured plaintiff was an employee who received benefits.

personal injurysummary judgmentdiscovery disputeLabor Law 240Labor Law 241Labor Law 200homeowner liabilityWorkers' Compensation Lawemployer-employee relationshipappellate review
References
20
Case No. ADJ7138747 ADJ7138832
Regular
Sep 20, 2013

CARLOS SANTILLANA vs. RITE REMODELLING, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Rite Remodelling, Inc.'s Petition for Reconsideration. The petition was dismissed for multiple procedural defects, including lack of verification, failure to state grounds for reconsideration, improper service, and violating formatting rules. Even if procedurally compliant, the Board would have denied the petition on the merits based on the WCJ's report. However, sanctions and costs were not imposed.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code Section 5902Labor Code Section 5903Ex Parte CommunicationServiceCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10850Single-spacedCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10232Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beldon Roofing & Remodeling Co. v. San Antonio Water System

Beldon Roofing & Remodeling, Inc. appealed a summary judgment from a declaratory judgment action regarding the interpretation of Section 406.096 of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Beldon, an employer that opted out of the state's workers' compensation system, had its bid for a public reroofing project with San Antonio Water System (SAWS) rejected due to its lack of statutory workers' compensation coverage. Beldon argued that the Act allowed alternative insurance plans if satisfactory to the governmental entity. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Section 406.096 mandates governmental entities to require proof of workers’ compensation coverage as defined in Section 401.011(44) of the Texas Labor Code for contractors on public construction projects, prioritizing uniform employee protection on public works.

Workers' Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment AppealPublic ContractsGovernmental EntitiesContractor CoverageNon-subscriber EmployerLegislative IntentTexas Labor Code
References
11
Case No. CV-23-2242
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Miguel Juncal

Claimant Miguel Juncal suffered physical injuries from a fall at work in November 2021 and was awarded temporary total disability benefits. The employer and its carrier, Maspeth Remodeling Co. et al., appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied their request to retroactively reduce Juncal's benefits. The carrier sought a reduction based on an independent medical examination from August 2022, arguing that the reduction should be effective from the IME date or the RFA-2 filing date. The Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, holding that benefits should continue at the temporary total disability rate until the March 2023 hearing, interpreting 12 NYCRR 300.23 (b) (2) as directory rather than mandatory regarding the 20-day hearing timeframe. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Disability BenefitsBenefit ReductionIndependent Medical ExaminationPsychiatric InjuriesOrthopedic InjuriesAdministrative LawRegulatory InterpretationAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
5
Case No. 2021-06-0167
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2022

Franco, Gilbert v. Jaime Rivera and Oscar Sanchaz, d/b/a J&O Construction and Remodeling

Gilberto Franco, an employee of J&O Construction and Remodeling, fractured his ankle after falling from a ladder on a jobsite. He filed a petition seeking temporary disability and reimbursement for medical expenses, alleging the employer lacked workers’ compensation insurance and failed to provide benefits. The Court determined that Mr. Franco is likely to prove a work injury and is entitled to medical benefits, finding J&O Construction to be an uninsured employer subject to the Workers’ Compensation Law. However, his requests for temporary disability and medical expense reimbursement were denied due to insufficient evidence of loss or specific expenses. The Court ordered J&O Construction to provide a panel of physicians and referred the employer to the Compliance Unit for its failure to do so.

Ankle FractureTemporary DisabilityMedical ExpensesUninsured EmployerPanel of PhysiciansWorkers' Compensation InsuranceExpedited HearingEmployer Non-ComplianceLadder FallCarpenter Injury
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 28 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