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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allison Gammons v. City of New York

This is a dissenting opinion arguing that Labor Law § 27-a (3) (a) (1), the "general duty" clause, is too broad to serve as a predicate for a General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action without citing a specific regulation. The dissent contrasts this general provision with more specific legal duties found in previously cited cases like Gonzalez v Iocovello and Cosgriff v City of New York, which involved Vehicle and Traffic Law or local administrative codes. It emphasizes that plaintiffs should be required to identify specific rules or regulations that were violated, similar to the requirements for Labor Law § 241 (6) claims. The dissenting judge suggests remanding the case to consider the applicability of a specific Occupational Safety and Health Act provision, 29 CFR 1910.23 (c) (1), which the plaintiff also asserted. The order, insofar as appealed from, was affirmed by the majority.

Dissenting OpinionLabor LawGeneral Municipal LawWorkplace SafetyGeneral Duty ClausePredicate for LiabilityPolice Officer InjuryOccupational Safety and Health ActStatutory InterpretationNew York Law
References
5
Case No. ADJ10680590, ADJ10680591
Regular
Oct 12, 2017

HYUNMI KIM vs. SHERRY PRECISION DENTAL ART, HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because it was "skeletal" and failed to meet the specific requirements of Labor Code section 5902 and Appeals Board Rules. The petition did not detail the grounds for reconsideration, cite specific evidence, or fairly state all material evidence relative to the disputed findings. Despite the WCAB acknowledging the WCJ's finding of injury AOE/COE made the order final, the petition's lack of specificity was sufficient grounds for dismissal. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for failing to comply with procedural requirements for seeking reconsideration.

ADJ10680590ADJ10680591WCABPetition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionFinal OrderAOE/COELabor Code 5902Rule 10842Rule 10846
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00655
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of Parrales v. New York Popular, Inc.

Claimant Isaura Parrales appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board which denied her application for administrative review of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) decision. The Board denied the application because it was not filled out completely, specifically lacking the required specification of the objection or exception interposed to the WCLJ's ruling as per 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (2) (ii). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the claimant failed to comply with the procedural requirements for an application for Board review by not identifying a specific exception to the WCLJ's findings.

Workers' Compensation LawAdministrative ReviewProcedural ComplianceApplication DenialWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionPermanent Partial DisabilityWage Loss BenefitsLabor Market AttachmentJudiciary Law
References
5
Case No. ADJ285115 (STK 0203659)
Regular
May 17, 2010

ARTEMIO GONZALEZ vs. RANGEL DRYWALL, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury to his left lower extremity, specifically a fractured ankle requiring surgery. The defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's award of 30% permanent disability, arguing the panel QME's reports lacked specific measurements and explanations required by the AMA Guides. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the QME's deposition testimony, which provided detailed explanations and measurements, constituted substantial evidence. The Board clarified that while AMA Guides sections must be followed, physicians can use their clinical judgment and specific tables within the Guides as long as the basis is explained.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardArtemio GonzalezRangel DrywallState Compensation Insurance FundPermanent DisabilityMedical TreatmentConstruction WorkerQualified Medical ExaminerAMA GuidesPermanent Impairment
References
2
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04302 [174 AD3d 42]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2019

Toussaint v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

The case addresses whether Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-9.9 (a), which requires that only a "trained and competent operator designated by the employer" shall operate a power buggy, is sufficiently specific to serve as a predicate for a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. Plaintiff Curby Toussaint was injured when he was struck by a power buggy operated by an unauthorized worker, Paul Estavio, who was "horse playing" on the construction site. The Appellate Division, First Department, held that the "designated person" requirement in the Industrial Code provision is specific enough to support the claim. Upon a search of the record, the court modified the lower court's decision and granted summary judgment on liability to the plaintiff against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. A dissenting opinion argued that the provision lacked specificity and that the operator was an interloper, not an improperly designated one, thus questioning the imposition of liability under these circumstances.

Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code § 23-9.9 (a)Power Buggy OperationDesignated PersonConstruction Site InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewVicarious LiabilityUnauthorized OperatorSpecific Safety Standards
References
11
Case No. 08-20-00035-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2022

Boerne to Bergheim Coalition for Clean Environment v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and Vulcan Construction Materials, LLC

The dissenting opinion addresses a case under the Texas Clean Air Act, specifically concerning Sections 382.052 and 382.05198, regarding a permit for a concrete plant near Hill Country Montessori School. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) issued the permit, arguing its general protectiveness review satisfied the requirements for considering adverse effects on nearby schools under Section 382.052. The majority agreed with the TCEQ's interpretation. However, the dissenting judge contends that the TCEQ abused its discretion by not conducting a specific analysis of possible adverse effects on individuals at the school, despite the clear mandatory language of Section 382.052. The dissent argues that the standard permit requirements of Section 382.05198 do not override or implicitly fulfill the specific school protectiveness review. The judge concludes that the TCEQ's reliance on inference rather than particular consideration was an error. The dissenting judge would have sustained the appellant's first issue.

Texas Clean Air ActEnvironmental LawAir QualityPermit IssuanceConcrete PlantSchool ProximityStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DiscretionDissenting OpinionPublic Health
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 1975

Brewery Workers Pension Fund v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund

In an action for a declaratory judgment and for specific performance of a certain agreement, defendants appeal from a judgment and order (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 29, 1975, which, *inter alia,* granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Judgment and order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. There are no issues requiring a trial.

Declaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceSummary JudgmentAppealAffirmedQueens CountySupreme CourtContract LawJudgment and OrderAppellate Division
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Logan v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.

The claimant, a medical surgery technician, initially reported a left knee injury after slipping on a wet floor on November 25, 2010. Nearly a year later, in September 2011, she filed a claim for additional injuries to her right knee, neck, back, and bilateral shoulders resulting from the same incident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed these additional claims due to lack of timely written notice as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. However, both a Board panel and the full Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently excused the claimant's late notice, interpreting the statute to require employer knowledge of the accident, not each specific injury. The self-insured employer appealed, contending that "knowledge of the accident" should be construed as "knowledge of the injury," but the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the plain meaning and distinct statutory usage of "accident" and "injury."

Workers' CompensationNotice of InjuryTimely NoticeEmployer KnowledgeAccident vs. InjuryStatutory ConstructionPlain Meaning RuleLegislative IntentNew York LawAppellate Division
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Specific Software Solutions, LLC v. Institute of Workcomp Advisors, LLC

Specific Software Solutions, a Tennessee LLC, filed a declaratory judgment action against the Institute of WorkComp Advisors, a North Carolina LLC, seeking a declaration of non-infringement of copyrights. This suit was initiated after the Institute sent a cease-and-desist letter alleging copyright infringement, despite its copyright applications not yet being registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The Institute moved to dismiss, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because federal law requires copyright registration as a prerequisite for filing an infringement suit. The court, adopting the "registration" approach, determined that merely filing an application is insufficient for registration; the Copyright Office must first review and decide on the copyrightability of the material. Consequently, finding that the Institute's copyrights were not yet registered, the court granted the motion to dismiss the case without prejudice due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Copyright LawSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissDeclaratory JudgmentCopyright RegistrationSixth CircuitIntellectual PropertyFederal CourtsStatutory InterpretationPleading
References
21
Case No. ADJ10679452
Regular
Jun 29, 2018

HORTENCIA AGUILAR vs. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, EMPLOYMENT & HUMAN SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it failed to meet the procedural requirements of Labor Code section 5902 and WCAB Rule 10842 by not providing specific references to the record. The Board adopted the Judge's report and recommendation, which found that the employer's disciplinary action against the applicant was not taken in good faith. Specifically, the employer failed to follow its own investigatory procedures by not including the applicant's input and by not adhering to its dispute resolution process. The Judge concluded that the employer's actions lacked the objective reasonableness required for a good-faith personnel action under applicable case law.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5902WCAB Rule 10842Report and RecommendationInjury to psycheGood faith personnel actionObjective good faith standardCotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall Intl.Inc.
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 11,793 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