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. 2021 NY Slip Op 02391 [193 AD3d 932]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2021

Matter of Zamir F. (Ricardo B.)

The Administration for Children's Services appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which had dismissed petitions alleging that Ricardo B. neglected Zamir F. through sexual abuse and derivatively neglected his other children, Elijah B., Jordan B., Jeremiah B., and Messiah B. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Family Court's order. It found that the petitioner had sufficiently established neglect and derivative neglect by a preponderance of the evidence, concluding that the testimony of the petitioner's child sexual abuse expert reliably corroborated Zamir's out-of-court statements. The court also determined that the Family Court had erred in its credibility assessment, particularly in preferring the father's expert's testimony. The matter was remitted to the Family Court for a dispositional hearing and the issuance of a dispositional order.

Child NeglectSexual AbuseDerivative NeglectFamily Court Act Article 10Corroboration of Child StatementsExpert TestimonyCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewParental DutiesRisk of Harm
References
8
Case No. CV-22-1903
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Ricardo Yolas

Ricardo Yolas, a car inspector and mechanic, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Yolas's claim for work-related injuries was established, but the self-insured employer alleged he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by misrepresenting his physical condition during a permanency evaluation and failing to disclose post-retirement work activity. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found that Yolas deliberately misrepresented his condition and continued to work while collecting benefits, imposing both a mandatory penalty and a discretionary penalty permanently disqualifying him from future indemnity benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the violation and that the discretionary penalty was not an abuse of discretion given the egregious nature of the misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraudulent misrepresentationIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Undisclosed work activityPermanent disqualificationIndemnity benefitsSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Substantial evidenceAbuse of discretionAppellate review
References
12
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06663
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2016

Matter of Ricardo M.J. (Kiomara A.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court order which found the respondent mother, Kiomara A., neglected her child, Ricardo M.J., through excessive corporal punishment. The Family Court's determination was supported by evidence including the child's statements to a social worker about being beaten with a spiked belt, the mother's admission, and observations of bruises on the child's body. The child's out-of-court statements were corroborated by the physical evidence and statements made to a detective. The appellate court upheld the Family Court's credibility assessment, noting the mother offered inconsistent explanations for the child's injuries. The appeal from the fact-finding order was dismissed as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.

NeglectCorporal PunishmentChild AbuseFamily LawAppellate ReviewCredibility AssessmentEvidenceBruisesChild InterviewSocial Worker Testimony
References
4
Case No. ADJ1896744
Regular
Apr 12, 2012

RICARDO AGUILAR, RICARDO MORENO vs. ADECCO STAFFING, INSURANCE COMPANY STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA c/o BROADSPIRE SERVICES

This case involves a worker's compensation applicant, Ricardo Aguilar, whose case was dismissed on September 30, 2008. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the defendant failed to provide proof of service for the Notice of Intention to Dismiss and the Order of Dismissal. The Board found that the applicant did not receive proper notice or an opportunity to be heard, as required by Rule 10582. Consequently, the Board rescinded the Order of Dismissal, reinstating the applicant's case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to DismissOrder of DismissalProof of ServiceWCAB Rule 10582Petition for Dismissal of ClaimApplicant's AssertionRescind OrderEAMS files
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Estrada-Tepal

The case involves Defendants Jorge Estrada-Tepal, Ricardo Estrada-Tepal, and Victor Leonel Estrada-Tepal, who are charged with sex trafficking and related offenses. Defendant Ricardo Estrada-Tepal filed a motion to dismiss all counts brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1591, arguing that the law is unconstitutionally overbroad as it infringes upon the right to free association. The Court, after construing the statute, acknowledged its broad scope, which encompasses seemingly harmless conduct without requiring a specific criminal purpose to further sex trafficking. However, the Court determined that the potential interference with intimate and expressive association rights was not substantial in relation to the statute's legitimate goal of eliminating human trafficking. Consequently, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

Sex TraffickingOverbreadth DoctrineFirst AmendmentFreedom of AssociationCriminal LawMotion to Dismiss18 U.S.C. § 1591Human TraffickingStatutory InterpretationDue Process
References
53
Case No. SBR 0319151
Regular
Apr 17, 2008

RICARDO LIMON vs. PYRAMID BUILDERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's contention that the permanent disability award should be apportioned. The Board found that neither the treating physician's nor the defendant's QME's reports provided sufficient detailed reasoning on causation and apportionment for the spine and knee injuries. Therefore, the Board amended the decision to defer issues of permanent disability, apportionment, and attorney fees, returning the case for further medical development on apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPyramid BuildersState Compensation Insurance FundRicardo LimonFindings and AwardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentTreating PhysicianQualified Medical Examiner
References
10
Case No. ADJ589352 (SBR 0319151)
Regular
Feb 24, 2009

RICARDO LIMON vs. PYRAMID BUILDERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves petitions for reconsideration by both applicant and defendant regarding a WCJ's award for admitted industrial injuries. The WCJ found 35% permanent disability and no apportionment to non-industrial factors, rating under the 2005 Schedule. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and returned the case to the trial level for further development of the medical record on permanent disability and apportionment. This decision was based on procedural errors in record-keeping and insufficient medical reasoning for apportionment, not on the disputed rating schedule.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationApportionmentPermanent DisabilityMedical Record DevelopmentWCJ Findings and AwardRating ScheduleCausationMedical OpinionAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1989

Berrios v. 1115 Fifth Avenue Corp.

Ricardo Berrios, an employee of Opal Window Cleaning Company, suffered injuries from a four-story fall while cleaning a window. He initiated a lawsuit against the building owner, 1115 Fifth Avenue Corporation, and its managing agent, Douglas-Elliman, Gibbons & Ives, who subsequently impleaded Opal Window Cleaning Company and the apartment residents, the Heironimuses. A jury determined that Berrios was 100% responsible for his injuries due to his failure to wear a provided safety belt, which was found to be in good condition. On appeal, the core issue was whether the owner and agent were liable under Labor Law § 202 for Berrios's failure to use safety devices. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, clarifying that while Labor Law § 202 mandates owners to provide safe means, it does not extend responsibility to ensure the worker's utilization of such safety equipment.

Window Cleaning AccidentLabor Law 202Safety BeltPersonal InjuryAppellate AffirmationOwner LiabilityAgent LiabilityEmployer LiabilityThird-Party LiabilityComparative Negligence
References
3
Case No. ADJ8944981
Regular
Oct 07, 2015

RICARDO ROQUE vs. GARDENA SUPERMARKET, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Ricardo Roque's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the petition's failure to meet the statutory requirement of being verified. Roque was given notice of this defect, and no verification or valid explanation for its absence was provided within a reasonable time. Therefore, the WCAB found the petition procedurally defective and dismissed it.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerificationLabor Code section 5902WCJ report10450(e)Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyPanel DecisionDismissalUnverified petitionNotice of defect
References
1
Case No. OAK 0330047
Regular
Oct 05, 2007

Ricardo Buendia vs. Sixtos Painting, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an Order Approving Compromise and Release for an industrial injury. The Board rescinded the approval and returned the case to the trial level because the applicant, Ricardo Buendia, claimed he did not understand he was settling his case. This allows Buendia to pursue setting aside the settlement agreement for good cause.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseSet AsideIndustrial InjuryPetition for ReconsiderationWCJGood CauseTrial LevelRescind
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 60 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