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. 30 AD3d 876
Regular Panel Decision

Sandra M. v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center

The plaintiffs, Sandra M. and her husband, appealed a Supreme Court order granting summary judgment to St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center, dismissing their complaint. Sandra M. was allegedly sexually assaulted by a nursing assistant, Ricardo Cortez, supplied by United Staffing System, Inc., while on suicide watch at the Hospital. The plaintiffs sued the Hospital, United, and Cortez, alleging the Hospital was negligent in its suicide watch policies and its failure to independently evaluate staff provided by United. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order and affirmed the judgment dismissing the complaint against the Hospital. The court found the Hospital was not vicariously liable for Cortez's personal tortious acts and had no duty to independently screen employees supplied by United, as it had no prior knowledge of Cortez's propensity for misconduct.

Personal InjurySexual AssaultNegligenceHospital LiabilityVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorNegligent HiringSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSuicide Watch
References
20
Case No. ADJ1885780
Regular
Jun 02, 2010

SANDRA SHERMAN, SANDRA SMITH vs. GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY, BROADSPIRE

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Applicant Sandra Sherman (also known as Sandra Smith) against Graybar Electric Company and BroadsPIRE. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. Even if it had been verified, the WCAB would have denied the petition on its merits, adopting the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code section 5902DismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJReport and RecommendationDeny on the meritsSmith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Lucena v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. 2016-1509 OR CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2018

People v. Nagler (Sandra)

Sandra Nagler appealed six judgments from the Justice Court of the Town of Wallkill, Orange County, primarily challenging her conviction for common-law driving while intoxicated (DWI). Following a nonjury trial, she was found guilty based on testimony from Trooper Brad Natalizio, who responded to an accident where Nagler admitted to falling asleep after consuming alcohol. The Justice Court initially sentenced Nagler to 45 days incarceration and three years' probation for the DWI conviction. On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, dismissed the appeals for other traffic infractions as abandoned. While upholding the legal sufficiency of the evidence for the DWI conviction, the Appellate Term found the 45-day jail sentence excessive, considering Nagler's community involvement and lack of prior criminal history. Consequently, the court modified the sentence, reducing the term of incarceration to time served while affirming the conviction.

Driving While IntoxicatedDUIDWIVehicle and Traffic LawAppellate ReviewSentence ModificationExcessive SentenceCommon-law DWIOrange CountyTown of Wallkill
References
23
Case No. 529802
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Sandra Anthony

Claimant Sandra Anthony injured her right wrist while taping drywall at a construction site and subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, naming AB Hill Enterprises, LLC as her employer. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, determining an employer-employee relationship existed and holding Dani's Builders, the general contractor, responsible for awards due to AB Hill's lack of coverage, also imposing a $5,000 penalty on AB Hill. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. AB Hill appealed, arguing it was not a "contractor" under the Construction Industry Fair Play Act and thus not obligated to maintain workers' compensation insurance. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported AB Hill's classification as a contractor and employer under the Act, and upheld the penalty.

construction industryworkers' compensation lawemployer-employee relationshipindependent contractor classificationstatutory presumptionConstruction Industry Fair Play Actsubcontractor liabilitypenalty assessmentinsurance requirementsAppellate Division decision
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08744
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2018

Nava-Juarez v. Mosholu Fieldston Realty, LLC

Plaintiff Eusebio Nava-Juarez sought partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim after falling from a shifting ladder while painting a building. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order and granted the plaintiff's motion. The court found that the plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment through his testimony and a coworker's affidavit. The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as their reliance on a mistranslated C-3 report, which stated the plaintiff fell down stairs, constituted inadmissible hearsay. The court clarified that the defendants did not prove the plaintiff was the source of the inaccurate information or provide a competent translator. Both Mosholu Fieldston Realty, LLC as the fee owner, and Mosholu Enterprises as the tenant, were found liable under the Labor Law.

Ladder accidentsummary judgmentLabor LawhearsaymistranslationC-3 reportworker's compensationpremises liabilityappellate reviewevidentiary standards
References
6
Case No. No. 14
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2020

The Matter of the Claim of Sandra L. O’Donnell v. Erie County

Claimant Sandra L. O’Donnell, an employee of Erie County, received a Workers’ Compensation Board award for loss of post-accident earnings due to a permanent partial disability. Employer Erie County and its carrier challenged this, arguing O’Donnell failed to show efforts to find work. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially upheld the award, applying a discretionary inference from Matter of Zamora v New York Neurologic Assoc., but later admitted a departure from its administrative precedent. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision, remitting the case. The Court clarified that while the 2017 amendment to WCL § 15 (3) (w) eliminated post-classification labor market attachment obligations, it did not alter pre-classification requirements. The matter is remanded for the Board to explain its rationale and any departure from its established precedent.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityLabor Market AttachmentInvoluntary RetirementAdministrative PrecedentStatutory InterpretationRemandNew York Court of AppealsWCL Section 15(3)(w)
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2006

In re Sandra

This petition concerns Sandra, as guardian of her uncle Holland, seeking court authorization to make gifts from his property to his two living sisters, Olive and Ruth. The initial request was for $40,000 gifts to three sisters, which was amended to $60,000 each for two sisters. A key aspect of the petition was a request for the authorization order to be made nunc pro tunc to September 13, 2005, to circumvent new Medicaid look-back period laws effective February 8, 2006. The court, applying the doctrine of substituted judgment and considering Holland's financial needs and the factors in Mental Hygiene Law § 81.21 (d), denied the nunc pro tunc request, stating it could not backdate a non-existent fact. However, the court did authorize Sandra to transfer a reduced sum of $30,000 each to Olive and Ruth, believing this amount would not unduly jeopardize Holland's ability to cover his expenses during the Medicaid look-back period.

GuardianshipSubstituted JudgmentMedicaid PlanningGift AuthorizationIncapacitated PersonNunc Pro TuncMedicaid Look-back PeriodElder LawEstate PlanningSocial Services Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Juarez v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance

Ruben Juarez, a DACA recipient, filed a class-action lawsuit against The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc., alleging alienage discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Juarez claimed he was legally authorized to work but was denied employment due to the company's policy of hiring only U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. Northwestern Mutual moved to dismiss, arguing their policy did not constitute intentional discrimination against aliens, as they hired LPRs. The Court denied the motion, ruling that a policy facially discriminating against a subclass of lawfully present aliens is sufficient to state a claim under § 1981, consistent with Equal Protection Clause principles.

Alienage Discrimination42 U.S.C. § 1981DACA RecipientEmployment DiscriminationMotion to DismissProtected ClassEqual Protection ClauseFacially Discriminatory PolicyLegal Permanent ResidentCitizenship Status
References
19
Case No. ADJ3033855 (VNO 0472517)
Regular
Feb 01, 2012

MARIA JUAREZ vs. LAWRENCE MURPHY, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Maria Juarez's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the December 20, 2011 order dismissing her case for lack of prosecution. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's recommendation to allow the case to proceed to trial. This decision effectively reinstates Juarez's claim.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalLack of ProsecutionRescindedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportDecision After Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ10882656, ADJ11049952
Regular
Feb 05, 2019

MARITHZA JUAREZ vs. LEVY RESTAURANT -STAPLES CENTER, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves Marithza Juarez's petition for removal after her attorneys were relieved by the WCJ. Juarez argued she cannot represent herself and cannot find new counsel. The WCAB granted the petition, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the matter to the trial level. The Board did not rule on the merits of the attorneys' withdrawal.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantAttorneys of RecordWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJRescind OrderTrial LevelFurther ProceedingsDecision After Removal
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 136 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