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. ADJ6650757
Regular
Nov 05, 2010

SANTOS BUENO vs. GOLDEN TREE HARVEST ENTERPRISES, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant, Santos Bueno, versus Golden Tree Harvest Enterprises and Zenith Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has issued an order denying reconsideration of a prior decision. The WCAB adopted the findings of the administrative law judge and found no basis to overturn the initial ruling. Therefore, the petitions for reconsideration have been officially denied.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSANTOS BUENOGOLDEN TREE HARVEST ENTERPRISESZENITH INSURANCE COMPANYADJ6650757San Fernando District OfficeORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATIONPetitions for Reconsiderationworkers' compensation administrative law judgedenial of reconsideration
References
0
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01479 [169 AD3d 1328]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2019

Santos v. State of New York

Agnaldo Dos Santos, an employee of P.S. Bruckel, Inc., was injured in November 2015 while working on a bridge owned by the State of New York, sustaining a fractured ankle after falling through an opening in a temporary deck during sandblasting. He commenced an action against the State under Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging a failure to provide adequate safety devices. The Court of Claims granted Dos Santos's motion for partial summary judgment on liability and denied the State's motion to dismiss the claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the opening in the deck constituted an elevation-related risk and that Dos Santos was not the sole proximate cause of the accident, as there was no evidence he was instructed to cover the opening or request it be covered.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-related hazardScaffold defectSummary judgmentProximate causeAppellate reviewPersonal injuryConstruction accidentBridge workFractured ankle
References
12
Case No. CV-23-1577
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Miguel Maria Santos

Miguel Maria Santos, a pizza delivery person, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his claim for benefits. Santos alleged injuries from a fall off his electric bicycle on June 14, 2021, while working for 77 GP, Inc. However, 77 GP, Inc. and its carrier controverted the claim, asserting no employer-employee relationship existed at the time of the accident. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge credited the employer's testimony that Santos was discharged on June 2, 2021, for drinking on the job, prior to his injuries. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, and the Appellate Division also affirmed, finding the Board's determination supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' compensationEmployer-employee relationshipSubstantial evidenceCredibility assessmentPizza deliveryDischarged employeeBicycle accidentAppellate reviewClaim denial
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06833 [175 AD3d 1742]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2019

Matter of Santos v. Brickens Constr. Inc.

Arturo Santos, a claimant with a work-related back injury classified as a permanent partial disability since 2007, had his workers' compensation benefits suspended in November 2016 due to a lack of labor market attachment, a decision upheld by the Workers' Compensation Board in March 2017. Following an April 2017 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w) that removed the labor market attachment requirement for certain permanent partial disability claimants, Santos sought reinstatement of his benefits. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially reinstated the award, the Board rescinded it, ruling the amendment did not apply retroactively to his claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, consistent with the precedent set in Matter of Scott v Visiting Nurses Home Care, because the final determination regarding Santos's voluntary withdrawal from the labor market occurred prior to the amendment's effective date.

Permanent Partial DisabilityLabor Market AttachmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsRetroactive ApplicationStatutory AmendmentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionBenefit SuspensionClaimant RightsDisability Law
References
4
Case No. 5976 110582/10
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2018

Santos v. Condo 124 LLC

This case involves an appeal regarding a construction worker, Franklin Santos, who sustained injuries after falling from a scaffold while manually carrying heavy marble at a construction site. The plaintiff sued the building owners, construction manager, and site safety consultant, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court's order denied summary judgment for the site safety consultant (CRSG) and the plaintiffs, while granting summary judgment to other defendants on certain claims. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, citing the existence of triable issues of fact. Key factual disputes included whether CRSG acted as a statutory agent under the Labor Law, given its authority to stop unsafe work practices, and the precise cause of Santos's fall, with conflicting testimonies regarding the scaffold's condition. The court also upheld the dismissal of specific Labor Law § 241(6) claims and the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims due to a lack of evidence regarding defendants' supervision, control, or notice of the alleged defect. A dissenting opinion argued for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim.

Construction AccidentScaffold FallLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Labor Law 200Summary JudgmentStatutory AgentSite Safety ConsultantIndustrial Code ViolationsProximate Cause
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Los Santos v. City of New York

Plaintiff Alsacia De Los Santos sued the City of New York, NYPD, and Lt. Christopher Pasquerelli, alleging retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state/municipal human rights laws. De Los Santos claimed Lt. Pasquerelli retaliated against her for reporting a sexual encounter between two police officers, Lt. Kevin Leddy and Officer Tara Eckert. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to state a First Amendment claim, could not show municipal liability, and failed to state a claim under human rights laws. The Court granted the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiff's conversations about the sexual encounter did not constitute speech on a matter of public concern for First Amendment purposes. Additionally, the court found she could not reasonably believe she was reporting sexual harassment under human rights laws.

RetaliationFirst AmendmentPublic ConcernSummary JudgmentSexual HarassmentNYPDPolice MisconductEmployment DiscriminationMunicipal LiabilityQualified Immunity
References
33
Case No. Nos. 96 Civ. 7435 (JSR), 96 Civ. 8141 (JSR)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 1997

In Re Baesa Securities Litigation

This case consolidates two class actions alleging securities fraud against Buenos Aires Embotelladora S.A. (Baesa), Pepsico Inc., and Charles H. Beach. Plaintiffs claimed defendants issued false statements overstating Baesa's financial position, particularly concerning its Brazilian subsidiary. The court addressed the Private Securities Reform Act of 1995, concluding that "recklessness" still constitutes scienter, but "motive and opportunity" are no longer automatically sufficient to infer fraudulent intent. The complaint was dismissed for failing to plead scienter with sufficient particularity, as subsidiary fraud cannot be automatically imputed to the parent. However, plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days.

Securities FraudPrivate Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995Scienter Pleading StandardRecklessnessMotive and OpportunityClass ActionCorporate MisconductPleading RequirementsConsolidated ActionsLeave to Replead
References
26
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04671 [241 AD3d 717]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2025

Santos v. Leeward Living, LLC

Plaintiff Jose Santos was injured after falling through an unguarded attic floor opening during construction, suing the general contractor and fee owner under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted his motion for summary judgment on liability for both sections, partially based on Industrial Code violations. The Appellate Division modified this, affirming liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and partially under § 241 (6) (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 [b] [1] [i]), while denying the motion for other Industrial Code sections (12 NYCRR 23-1.15, 23-1.16) as inapplicable. The court also established the fee owner's liability and denied their homeowners' exemption claim.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary JudgmentElevation-Related HazardUnguarded OpeningAttic Floor FallConstruction AccidentGeneral Contractor LiabilityFee Owner LiabilityHomeowners' Exemption
References
22
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 24058
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2024

Matter of Buenos Hill Inc. v. Saratoga Springs Planning Bd.

This case concerns Buenos Hill Inc.'s challenge against the Saratoga Springs Planning Board regarding a special use permit for a marijuana dispensary. The petitioner alleged that the Cannabis Law's opt-out provision violated New York's home rule provisions and that the Cannabis Law was preempted by the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) under the Supremacy Clause. The Supreme Court, Saratoga County, dismissed both claims. The court found the home rule challenge was not ripe for adjudication and, even on merits, held the Cannabis Law was a valid general law. Regarding the preemption claim, the court determined the plaintiff lacked standing under the CSA and, additionally, found no conflict preemption between the state and federal laws, citing Congress's consistent policy of non-interference with state-level marijuana legislation.

Marihuana Regulation and Taxation ActCannabis LawControlled Substances ActPreemptionHome RuleZoning LawSpecial Use PermitDeclaratory JudgmentSupremacy ClauseFederalism
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Keles v. Santos

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied a claimant's request for workers' compensation benefits. The claimant, primarily employed by Plymouth Beef Company, sought benefits for an injury allegedly sustained while performing inspection work for Augusto B. Santos, who owned a cleaning business at the same facility. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found no employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and Santos, leading to the disallowance of the claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, citing substantial evidence supporting the lack of an employer-employee relationship. Key factors considered included Santos's lack of control over the claimant's work, the cessation of payment to the claimant months before the accident, and the gratuitous nature of the claimant's continued services, which did not establish an employment bond.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorRight to ControlMethod of PaymentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionGratuitous ServicesScope of Employment
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 73 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