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. 2018 NY Slip Op 00349
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2018

Matter of Velez v. New York State Off. of Children

The petitioner, Luis Velez, sought to overturn an amended decision by the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) which found him guilty of child maltreatment. The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed the case and unanimously confirmed OCFS's determination, subsequently denying Velez's petition and dismissing the proceeding. The court found that OCFS's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including consistent statements from the child and mother detailing an incident where Velez physically assaulted the mother while driving with the child in the vehicle. The ruling affirmed that OCFS properly credited its investigatory records and was not required to accept Velez's contradictory account or await a criminal conviction. Furthermore, the court upheld OCFS's finding that Velez's maltreatment was relevant to his employment in childcare or potential involvement in adoption or foster care, citing his failure to acknowledge responsibility for his actions.

Child MaltreatmentOCFS DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceInvestigatory RecordsCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewFamily LawAdministrative DecisionChild WelfareEmployment Eligibility
References
11
Case No. ADJ1137293 (WCK 0038877)
Regular
Feb 08, 2013

SANRA VELEZ vs. BRADFORD STAFFING INC.; CIGA adjusted by SEDGWICK CMS for SUPERIOR PACIFIC CASUALTY COMPANY

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior dismissal order concerning applicant Sanra Velez. The WCAB rescinded the trial judge's decision, finding it necessary to return the matter for further proceedings and a new decision by the trial judge. This decision is not a final determination of the merits. The parties retain their rights to seek further reconsideration after the trial judge issues a new ruling.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSANRA VELEZBRADFORD STAFFING INC.CIGASEDGWICK CMSSUPERIOR PACIFIC CASUALTY COMPANYADJ1137293WCJRECONSIDERATIONORDER OF DISMISSAL
References
0
Case No. 535214
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Paula Velez

Claimant Paula Velez appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her claim for benefits related to an alleged work-related back condition. Velez, a housekeeper, claimed her debilitating back condition was an occupational disease developed over time due to her job duties. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge twice established the claim, the Board ultimately reversed, finding Velez failed to establish a recognizable link between her condition and her occupation with competent medical evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting inconsistencies in medical reports and claimant's testimony regarding symptom onset and work-relatedness, and deferring to the Board's credibility assessment. The court concluded that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Occupational Disease ClaimCausally-Related ConditionBack InjuryMedical Evidence SufficiencyWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate Division ReviewCredibility DeterminationHousekeeping DutiesDate of DisablementSpondylolisthesis
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Velez Ex Rel. Velez v. Reynolds

Lisette Velez filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York, ACS, its caseworkers, and commissioners, along with an ACS contract agency and its social worker. Velez alleged that her children were unlawfully removed and retained due to an unconstitutional ACS policy of prosecuting battered mothers for neglect solely based on their status as domestic violence victims. Defendants moved for summary judgment, citing jurisdictional issues, statute of limitations, and lack of municipal policy or personal involvement. The court largely denied the motions, finding the Rooker-Feldman doctrine inapplicable due to Velez's lack of a full and fair opportunity to litigate in family court. The court also found genuine issues of material fact regarding the alleged unconstitutional policies and individual involvement, though it granted qualified immunity to some individual defendants for specific claims.

Civil Rights42 U.S.C. § 1983Child NeglectDomestic ViolenceBattered Mothers PolicyUnconstitutional PolicySummary JudgmentRooker-Feldman DoctrineQualified ImmunityStatute of Limitations
References
52
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03056 [217 AD3d 1095]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2023

Matter of Velez v. Eger Health Care & Rehab Ctr.

Paula Velez, a housekeeper, filed a workers' compensation claim for a debilitating back condition, alleging it was work-related due to her job duties. The Workers' Compensation Board initially established the claim twice but later reversed, finding that Velez failed to establish a recognizable link between her back condition and the distinctive features of her employment through competent medical evidence. The Board credited the employer's testimony over the claimant's and noted inconsistencies in her medical history regarding the onset and work-relatedness of her symptoms. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence and correctly disallowed the claim for occupational disease benefits.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' CompensationBack ConditionCausationMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewCredibility DeterminationEmployment HistorySymptom Development
References
8
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01887 [236 AD3d 617]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

Velez v. LSG 105 W. 28th, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order regarding a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Supreme Court had granted plaintiff Jose Luis Velez summary judgment on liability against LSG 105 West 28th, LLC and Flintlock Construction Services LLC, finding he fell from an elevation without adequate safety devices as instructed by his foreman. Conversely, the Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the claim and their third-party claims for indemnification and contribution against Construction & Realty Safety Group, Inc. (CRSG). The court also granted CRSG's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding CRSG was not negligent as it lacked supervisory control over the plaintiff's work, thus precluding claims requiring a finding of negligence. The Appellate Division upheld these determinations.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentFall from ElevationSafety DevicesRecalcitrant Worker DefenseContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContributionNegligence
References
5
Case No. ADJ10500948
Regular
Dec 18, 2017

ERNESTO VELEZ vs. GENEVA STAFFING, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns applicant Ernesto Velez's workers' compensation claim for an injury sustained in January 2015, prior to his termination on July 7, 2016. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to prove his injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment due to a lack of credible testimony and substantial medical evidence. Furthermore, the Board affirmed the finding that the claim is barred as a post-termination claim under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) because the applicant did not demonstrate any exceptions applied. The applicant therefore took nothing.

AOE/COELabor Code § 3600(a)(10)post-termination defensepetition for reconsiderationcredibility determinationsubstantial medical evidenceaffirmative defenseburden of proofdate of injuryexceptions to defense
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2006

Velez v. Daar

In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff sought damages for psychological and emotional injuries stemming from a failure to diagnose thyroid cancer. The plaintiff engaged in psychotherapy with Dr. Velma Stade and initially limited the disclosure of related notes. However, during a deposition, the plaintiff disclosed that factors beyond the thyroid cancer, such as work environment and family issues, contributed to his psychological symptoms. Consequently, the defendant sought full disclosure of Dr. Stade's notes, arguing that the plaintiff had waived his psychotherapist-client privilege. The Supreme Court reversed the motion court's protective order, determining that the plaintiff had indeed waived the CPLR 4508 social worker-patient confidentiality privilege by placing his psychological condition in controversy, thereby making the disclosure of the sensitive records warranted.

medical malpracticepsychotherapyconfidentiality privilegewaiver of privilegeCPLR 4508psychological injuriesemotional distressthyroid cancerdisclosure of recordssocial worker-patient privilege
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 1983

Velez v. Union Sanitorium Ass'n

The plaintiff initiated an action against Union Sanitorium Association, Inc., alleging medical malpractice by its employee, Peter A. Herman, M.D. This followed a prior action (Action No. 1) against Union Sanitorium, Union Health Center, International Ladies Garment Workers Union, and Herman, where a motion to dismiss was pending due to the plaintiff's failure to serve a bill of particulars. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a second action (Action No. 2) solely against Union Sanitorium, reiterating the same negligence claims. The defendant moved to dismiss Action No. 2, arguing the existence of a pending prior action. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied the motion, but the appellate court reversed this decision, granting the defendant's motion and dismissing the complaint in Action No. 2, citing the substantial identity of parties and causes of action between the two cases.

Medical MalpracticeMotion to DismissPrior Action PendingRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelIdentity of PartiesIdentity of Causes of ActionAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureProcedural Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 1996

Velez v. Tishman Foley Partners

An ironworker, employed by Diamond International, Inc., was injured when a hoist tower's cross-bracing gave way. The plaintiff sued Universal Builders Supply, Inc. (who built the hoist tower), Tishman Foley Partners (owner/general contractor), and Glassalum International Corporation (a subcontractor). The Supreme Court modified a prior order, granting Universal's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against it. The court denied common-law indemnification for Tishman Foley Partners and Glassalum against Universal, but affirmed Tishman Foley Partners' contractual indemnification claim, noting that an owner's strict statutory liability does not preclude contractual indemnity without a showing of owner negligence.

Construction AccidentHoist TowerLabor LawIndemnificationSummary JudgmentSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral ContractorOwner LiabilityStrict LiabilityCommon-Law Indemnity
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 13 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