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. CA 15-01542
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2016

JOHNSTON'S L.P. GAS SERVICE, INC., GABRIEL, HUGO RAFAEL RAMIREZ v

Plaintiffs, undocumented farm workers, suffered injuries from a propane gas explosion in their living quarters, leading to an action against Johnston’s L.P. Gas Service, Inc., the propane supplier. Johnston’s initiated a third-party action against the farm owners and plaintiffs' employers, the DeMarco defendants, seeking contribution or indemnification. The Supreme Court denied Johnston’s summary judgment motion and partially denied the DeMarco defendants' motion. The Appellate Division modified the order, dismissing claims against Johnston’s regarding propane odorization and granting the DeMarco defendants' motion concerning plaintiff Lucio Jimenez Gabriel due to workers' compensation exclusivity and the absence of a 'grave injury.' The court affirmed the denial of Johnston’s motion regarding causation and failure to warn, citing unresolved factual issues.

Propane ExplosionWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjurySummary JudgmentFailure to WarnCausationEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionFacial DisfigurementUndocumented Farm Workers
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2002

Bernier v. Gabriel Contracting

The plaintiff, a carpenter employed by K & C Construction Corporation (subcontractor), sustained injuries in a fall from an unsecured ladder while working at a construction site managed by Gabriel Contracting (general contractor). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to both defendants, dismissing the personal injury complaint, based on the plaintiff being a special employee of Gabriel, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. On appeal, the order was modified; the appellate court denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding a factual dispute regarding the special employment relationship and thus reinstating the complaint. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability, citing an issue of fact as to whether the fall was a substantial factor in the injuries.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary Judgment AppealSpecial EmploymentWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Law § 240(1)General Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityLadder FallScaffold Safety
References
7
Case No. ADJ2388348 (FRE 0248294)
Regular
Apr 08, 2011

Rodney Cotta vs. Leprino Foods

Defendant Leprino Foods sought reconsideration of an award finding applicant Rodney Cotta sustained an industrial injury to his right knee on or about September 24, 2007. While Cotta had a prior knee injury in 2002, he received no treatment after 2003. Medical evidence, particularly Dr. Sorenson's report, supported the WCJ's finding of a new injury, deeming it an aggravation of a pre-existing condition, distinct from the prior injury. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the 2007 incident constituted a new industrial injury.

New industrial injuryRight kneeSeptember 242007Reconsideration deniedPrevious injuryStipulated award3% permanent disabilitySpecific injuryReceiving foreman
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2003

Gabriel v. Boldt Group, Inc.

Plaintiffs appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, which denied their cross motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff, Raun Duval Gabriel, a construction worker, was injured when a defective hoisting apparatus collapsed while he and a coworker were attempting to lift a heavy metal insert. The cross member holding the pulley collapsed, striking the plaintiff with the pulley and rope. The Appellate Division concluded that a defective hoist, collapsing during use, constitutes a falling object under Labor Law § 240 (1), thus entitling plaintiffs to partial summary judgment on liability.

Labor Law § 240(1)Construction InjuryHoisting Equipment FailureFalling Object DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReversalWorkplace AccidentAbsolute LiabilityScaffolding LawDefective Device
References
1
Case No. ADJ9270975
Regular
May 29, 2018

GABRIEL SANCHEZ vs. STRAW HAT PIZZA, AMTRUST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Gabriel Sanchez's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The applicant had 25 days from service of the WCJ's order to file the petition, with the deadline extended to Monday, March 26, 2018, due to a weekend. Since the petition was filed on March 27, 2018, it was deemed late. The WCAB lacks jurisdiction to consider petitions filed after this jurisdictional deadline.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsService by MailDate of FilingOrder Allowing Cost
References
0
Case No. ADJ9343576
Regular
Mar 07, 2019

GABRIEL VELA vs. NORTHWOODS RESORTS, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the applicant, Gabriel Vela, which the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed as untimely. Although the defendant claimed service of the Order Approving Compromise and Release on June 6, 2017, proof of service was defective, meaning the reconsideration period did not begin to run until actual receipt. The applicant stated he received the order on December 4, 2018, but his petition for reconsideration filed on January 9, 2019, was still beyond the statutory deadline. Furthermore, the applicant failed to allege any valid grounds for setting aside the compromise and release.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitDefective ServiceOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseProof of ServiceActual ReceiptGood CauseFraudMutual Mistake of Fact
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodney Sherman v. New York State Thruway Authority

This case involves claimant Rodney Sherman's personal injury action against the New York State Thruway Authority, stemming from a slip and fall on an icy sidewalk. The appeal concerns the application of the storm-in-progress doctrine at the summary judgment stage. Justice Rivera, in a dissenting opinion, argues that triable issues of material fact exist regarding whether the storm had ended and if the Authority had a reasonable period to address the icy conditions. The Authority contended the storm was ongoing, while Sherman presented evidence suggesting it had ceased hours prior due to warmer temperatures and light rain. The dissent concludes that factual questions remain about the nature of the weather conditions and the applicability of the storm-in-progress doctrine, making summary judgment inappropriate.

Storm-in-progress doctrineSummary judgmentPersonal injuryIcy conditionsSidewalk liabilityNegligenceWeather conditionsDissenting opinionAppellate reviewProperty owner duty
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Morrison

Defendant Rodney Morrison was convicted of RICO conspiracy involving the sale and distribution of contraband cigarettes and illegal firearm possession. The State and City of New York sought restitution as victims of the RICO conspiracy. The Court found the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) applicable. It determined that the State of New York is a direct victim, but the City of New York is not, as its claimed harm was not directly and proximately caused by the specific conduct Morrison was convicted of (lacking New York State tax stamps). Consequently, the State's restitution application is granted in part, limited to tax losses from actual CCTA violations between October 1996 and September 2004, while the City's application is denied. The State must submit further documentation consistent with these limitations.

RestitutionRICO ConspiracyContraband CigarettesTax EvasionMVRAVWPAState Tax LossCriminal SentencingFederal Court DecisionProximate Causation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2010

Pabon v. New York City Transit Authority

Gabriel Pabon, a former Train Service Supervisor, sued the New York City Transit Authority and its employees, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA, First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and civil conspiracy. Pabon was terminated after a violent incident during an independent medical examination related to a worker's compensation claim. He claimed his termination was discriminatory and retaliatory for reporting negligence. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all federal claims, finding Pabon was not a qualified individual under the ADA and failed to seek reasonable accommodation. It also dismissed his First Amendment retaliation, due process, and civil conspiracy claims for lack of protected speech, proper procedure, and class-based animus, respectively. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state and municipal law claims.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Summary JudgmentEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationFirst Amendment RetaliationDue ProcessCivil ConspiracyWitness IntimidationWhistleblower Protection
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meadows v. PLANET AID, INC.

Plaintiff, Bob Meadows, a 64-year-old African-American and Native-American former trucker, sued his ex-employer Planet Aid, Inc., and supervisors Rodney Carter and Jostein Pedersen, alleging age and race discrimination, FLSA and NYSHRL violations, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, intentional interference with an advantageous relationship, retaliation, whistleblower violations, hostile work environment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and fraud and misrepresentation. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court granted dismissal for NYSHRL, intentional interference with an advantageous relationship, Title VII retaliation, N.Y. Labor Law § 740 whistleblower, and emotional distress claims. However, the motion to dismiss was denied for age and race discrimination, FLSA, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, defamation, and fraud and misrepresentation claims, allowing them to proceed.

Age DiscriminationRace DiscriminationFair Labor Standards ActNew York State Human Rights LawBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentHostile Work EnvironmentMotion to DismissEmployment LawPleading Standards
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 77 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