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. Action Nos. 1 and 2
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2005

Fung v. Japan Airline Co.

The case involves two related actions for personal injuries stemming from Brent F. Fung's slip and fall on ice in a parking lot owned by his employer, the Port Authority. Japan Airlines, responsible for contracting snow removal, hired Aero Snow Removal Corp. Fung sued Japan Airlines and Aero Snow. Japan Airlines moved for summary judgment, citing worker's compensation exclusivity. Aero Snow also sought summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty of care. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied these motions. On appeal, the order was reversed. The court granted summary judgment to Japan Airlines, finding the claims barred by Worker's Compensation Law § 29, and to Aero Snow, as it did not assume a duty to prevent harm or create a hazardous condition.

personal injuryslip and fallsnow removalsummary judgmentworker's compensation exclusivityduty of careappellate reviewcontract lawthird-party liabilitypremises liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fung v. Japan Airlines Co.

Plaintiff Brent Fung, a Port Authority employee, slipped on ice at John F. Kennedy International Airport and sustained back injuries, for which he received workers’ compensation. He subsequently filed negligence actions against Japan Airlines Management Corp. (JAMC), the Port Authority's managing agent, and Aero Snow Removal Corp., a snow removal contractor. JAMC sought immunity under Workers’ Compensation Law, arguing it acted as Fung's employer or coemployee. The court rejected JAMC's defense, finding insufficient working relationship to extend the exclusive remedy provisions. The court also dismissed claims against Aero, concluding Aero owed no duty of care to Fung as its contract did not require salting/sanding without request and its actions did not create or exacerbate a dangerous condition. The Appellate Division's order was modified, affirming the dismissal of claims against Aero, denying JAMC's immunity defense, and remitting for further consideration of indemnification claims.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusive Remedy DoctrineAgency RelationshipSpecial EmployerCoemployee LiabilityNegligence ActionSnow Removal ContractDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
23
Case No. ADJ10125079
Regular
Feb 22, 2017

BIRGIT GALINDO vs. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for removal filed by the defendants, American Medical Response and its insurer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, citing that removal is an extraordinary remedy only granted in cases of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB found that the defendants failed to demonstrate such harm and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse decision is eventually issued. Therefore, the defendants' contentions can be raised with the trial judge.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ AnalysisAdministrative Law JudgeExtraordinary RemedyFinal DecisionTrial Judge
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2003

Peycke v. Newport Media Acquisition II, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of DSA Community Publishing, was allegedly injured after a slip and fall on ice in an office parking lot. She initiated an action for personal injuries against Newport Media Acquisition II, Inc., the building owner, and A. Ciesinski Snow Plowing, Inc., the company responsible for snow removal. The Supreme Court denied Newport's motion for summary judgment but granted A. Ciesinski's cross-motion. On appeal, the cross-appeal by the plaintiff was dismissed. The appellate court modified the order, affirming the denial of summary judgment for Newport but denying A. Ciesinski's motion to dismiss Newport's cross-claim for indemnification, citing triable issues of fact.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentCross ClaimsIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation DefenseTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewNegligenceBuilding Owner Liability
References
6
Case No. ADJ8809588
Regular
Oct 10, 2013

**SHARON SNOW,** vs. **WEST COAST COSMETIC MEDICAL; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA,**

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal after the trial judge ordered the case to trial and closed discovery. The defendant argues insufficient opportunity to conduct discovery, citing the applicant's cancellation of a deposition due to a perceived discrimination claim that was not formally filed. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding good cause to reopen discovery. The matter is returned to the trial level for a priority conference to ensure complete discovery before proceeding to trial.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedDeposition CancellationLabor Code section 132aDiscovery CompletionIndustrial InjuryPsyche InjuryDigestive System InjuryExilis TechnicianMedical Report
References
0
Case No. ADJ6859570
Regular
Nov 04, 2013

GERSON RODRIGUEZ vs. VENTURI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO.

This case involves a lien claimant who failed to file a timely response to a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions. The Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and, instead, granted removal to itself. The Board found the lien claimant's response to be untimely, even when considering electronic filing, and thus imposed the maximum sanction of $2,500.00 jointly and severally against the lien claimant and its representatives.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSanctionsRemovalLien ClaimantElectronic Adjudication Management SystemLabor Code Section 5310Administrative Law JudgePetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to Impose Sanctions
References
0
Case No. ADJ7277939
Regular
Jan 11, 2011

MISUK BRIANS vs. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the defendant sought removal after the judge took a mandatory settlement conference off calendar and demanded further responses. The Board granted removal, rescinding the judge's order and criticizing the procedural deviation from policy. The Board found the applicant's stipulations adequate despite the defendant's withdrawal of agreement. The Board will approve the stipulations unless either party objects in writing within twenty days.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceStipulations with Request for AwardOrder Taking MSC Off CalendarWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code section 5502(a)Policy and Procedure Manual section 1.91(C)(3)Status ConferenceAdequacy
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feher Rubbish Removal, Inc. v. New York State Department of Labor

The appellate court addressed appeals by the New York State Department of Labor (DOL) concerning judgments that annulled the DOL's determination that prevailing wages must be paid by Feher Rubbish Removal, Inc. and Syracuse Haulers Waste Removal, Inc. for refuse collection, specifically questioning if this applied to private buildings. The court first clarified that the actions were purely for declaratory judgment, not CPLR article 78 proceedings to annul determinations. Interpreting Labor Law § 231 (1), the court found that its plain language and legislative intent did not limit its application to public buildings. Consequently, the court concluded that employers are indeed obligated to pay prevailing wages to employees collecting garbage or refuse from both public and private buildings under municipal contracts. The judgments of the lower court were modified, and declarations were amended to reflect this obligation.

Prevailing WageLabor LawStatutory InterpretationPublic WorksBuilding Service WorkGarbage CollectionRefuse RemovalMunicipal ContractsDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. ADJ6888108
Regular
Aug 15, 2013

WENDY PARUSZKIEWICZ vs. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, Adjusted by SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves an applicant, Wendy Paruszkiewicz, and defendants American Medical Response and ACE American Insurance. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final, interlocutory order. Such interim procedural rulings, concerning evidence or trial setting, do not determine substantive rights and are therefore not subject to reconsideration. The petition for removal was also denied as no irreparable harm or prejudice was shown, nor was reconsideration deemed an inadequate remedy.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
10
Case No. SAC 308622 SAC 308623 SAC 309351 SAC 323463 SAC 355784
Regular
May 09, 2007

DELETTE ZIEGELMANN-JACKSON vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The applicant sought removal to challenge the WCJ's deferral of a ruling on a petition to enforce a subpoena for personal items, arguing it unfairly required a second deposition. The Appeals Board dismissed removal in several cases where no issues were pending, but granted removal in case number SAC 355784. The Board affirmed the WCJ's order deferring the subpoena ruling, allowing for potential further depositions if warranted, and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalPetition to EnforceSubpoena Duces TecumDeferred RulingIndustrial InjuryLabor Code Section 132aDiscriminationPrivacyDeposition
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 6,399 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