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. 2023 NY Slip Op 05898
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2023

Reyes v. Episcopal Senior Hous. Greece, LLC

Plaintiff, Miguel Reyes, was injured when a window fell on his head during a demolition project, leading him to file an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied his motion for partial summary judgment on liability, citing a triable issue on whether his conduct was the sole proximate cause. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted the third-party defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding plaintiff did not sustain a grave injury. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed both decisions. It found that plaintiff's conduct was, at most, comparative negligence and not the sole proximate cause, thus granting his motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. The Appellate Division also reinstated the third-party complaint, determining that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether plaintiff suffered a grave injury as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Construction Site SafetyDemolition ProjectFall from HeightLabor Law Section 240(1)Scaffolding SafetyComparative NegligenceSole Proximate Cause DefenseSummary Judgment MotionGrave Injury DefinitionThird-Party Indemnification
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00169 [168 AD3d 1199]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2019

Matter of Villagra v. Sunrise Senior Living Mgt.

Claimant Rosalind M. Villagra sought workers' compensation benefits after an injury sustained at work. Her claim was initially disallowed by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) due to a lack of prima facie medical evidence. Subsequently, claimant filed an application for Board review, requesting a rehearing or reopening of her claim, arguing the WCLJ's decision was inconsistent. The Workers' Compensation Board denied her application, deeming it an untimely appeal from the WCLJ's decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board applied an incorrect statutory framework and should have evaluated the application as one for rehearing or reopening.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsTimeliness of AppealApplication for RehearingReopening of ClaimPrima Facie Medical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Law Judge DecisionAppellate ReviewStatutory FrameworkProcedural ErrorRemittal to Board
References
5
Case No. ADJ7750099
Regular
Apr 01, 2014

JERRI USREY vs. SIERRA OAKS SENIOR CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to affirm the finding that Sierra Oaks Senior Center violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating applicant Jerri Usrey's employment due to her filing a workers' compensation claim. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning on witness credibility and evidence resolution. However, the determination of reinstatement and lost wages was deferred due to insufficient evidence regarding the availability of suitable work and applicant's ability to perform it. The award of $10,000 for the section 132a violation was affirmed, with further proceedings to address reinstatement and lost wages.

Labor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardreinstatementlost wagespoor performanceindustrial injuryadverse treatmentcredibility assessmenttrier of fact
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Atria Senior Living Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Ernest Rodriguez sued his former employer Atria Senior Living Group under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Rodriguez moved for partial summary judgment on one ADA reasonable accommodation claim, one ADA retaliation claim, and six FMLA interference claims. The Court denied Rodriguez's motion for partial summary judgment in its entirety. The Court granted summary judgment to Atria on the ADA reasonable accommodation claim, the ADA retaliation claim, and four of the FMLA claims, finding no genuine disputes of material fact. However, for two FMLA claims concerning health insurance premiums and concurrent workers' compensation leave, the Court denied summary judgment to both parties due to unresolved factual disputes.

ADA accommodationADA retaliationFMLA interferenceSummary judgmentMedical leaveDisability discrimination100% healed policyHealth insurance premiumsWorkers' compensationEmployee benefits
References
18
Case No. ADJ6729351
Regular
Jul 06, 2012

TERESA MALDONADO vs. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, SEDGWICK CMS

This case, *Maldonado v. Sunrise Senior Living*, involved an applicant seeking reconsideration of a prior decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB reviewed the petition for reconsideration and the administrative law judge's report. Finding no grounds to overturn the initial decision, the WCAB formally denied the petition for reconsideration. The order adopting the judge's reasoning implies the original ruling was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSunrise Senior LivingSedgwick CMSADJ6729351Long Beach District OfficeDenying ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judge ReportRecord ReviewAdopt and Incorporate
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenfield, Stein & Senior, LLP v. Daley (In Re Daley)

Greenfield, Stein & Senior, LLP (GSS) initiated an adversary proceeding against William Stewart Daley, the debtor in a Chapter 7 case. GSS sought subrogation to the nondischargeable claim of Daley's former wife, Sally Peters, arguing that GSS had secured her claim against Daley. Peters had a prior lien on proceeds from Daley's employment action, which was negotiated by Shoemaker, an attorney who later joined GSS. The Appellate Division ruled Peters' lien was superior to GSS's charging lien due to the attorneys' awareness and participation in the settlement agreement. The court ultimately concluded that GSS did not pay Peters out of its own property and thus could not be subrogated to her rights. Therefore, Daley's motion to dismiss GSS's complaint for failure to state a claim was granted.

SubrogationCharging LienAttorney's FeesLien PriorityBankruptcy Code § 509(a)Marital ClaimsEquitable Ownership InterestMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Appellate Division
References
18
Case No. ADJ8501384
Regular
Dec 30, 2014

ARTEMIO VASQUEZ vs. INTEGRAL SENIOR LIVING, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the applicant, Artemio Vasquez, against Integral Senior Living and Helmsman Management Services. The applicant sought removal due to incomplete discovery, specifically concerning a neurologist, internist, and sleep study, and alleged prejudice from proceeding to trial. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's report. The Board found the objection untimely, noted the applicant's failure to object to the Declaration of Readiness or diligently pursue discovery, and concluded that any issues with the PQME report could be addressed by the trial judge or via post-trial remedies, thus not causing irreparable harm.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscoveryPrejudiceIrreparable HarmPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerAOE/COE
References
0
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05816
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2024

Yi Jiang Pai v. Nelson Senior Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

The plaintiff, an employee of a third-party defendant, was injured after falling from a ladder while inspecting a fire sprinkler system. The plaintiffs initiated a personal injury action against the property owners and general contractor, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment on liability for Labor Law § 240(1) and spoliation of evidence, and also denied a cross-motion for contractual indemnification. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) due to triable issues of fact. However, the court modified the spoliation ruling, directing an adverse inference charge at trial for the destruction of an elbow joint pipe, instead of outright denial of sanctions. The denial of contractual indemnification was also affirmed.

Personal InjuryLabor LawLadder FallWorkplace AccidentSummary JudgmentSpoliation of EvidenceAdverse InferenceContractual IndemnificationConstruction Site SafetyAppellate Review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 1992

Town of Newburgh v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n

This case involves an appeal concerning an arbitration award related to a collective bargaining agreement. The petitioner sought to vacate an arbitrator's award that mandated salary increases for incumbent typist employees to match a new hire's salary rate. The respondent, Civil Service Employees Association, cross-petitioned to confirm the award. The Supreme Court denied the petition and confirmed the award. On appeal, the judgment was modified; the appellate court vacated the portion of the arbitration award concerning the specific salary increase and remitted the matter to the arbitrator. The court affirmed that the timeliness of a grievance is an arbitrator's domain but found the arbitrator exceeded authority by fashioning a remedy outside the collective bargaining agreement's explicit limitations. The case was remitted for a modified award consistent with the agreement's terms.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementSalary DisputeExceeding AuthorityProcedural TimelinessJudicial ReviewContractual LimitationsGrievance ProcedureTypist SalariesAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacobsen v. New York State Department of Labor

Petitioner, a senior stenographer for the Department of Labor, was terminated after cumulative absences due to a work-related injury exceeded one year, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71. The Department calculated absences including non-workdays. Petitioner challenged the calculation and argued improper termination due to lack of notice regarding the concurrent running of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. The court found respondent's method of calculating Civil Service Law § 71 leave rational. However, it determined that the Department of Labor failed to provide proper notice that petitioner's FMLA leave would run concurrently with her workers' compensation leave. Consequently, the court annulled the termination, granted the petition for reinstatement with back pay and benefits, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LeaveCivil Service LawFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Cumulative AbsencesTermination of EmploymentMedical DisabilityNotice RequirementsReinstatementBack Pay and BenefitsAdministrative Review
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 247 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