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. 2019 NY Slip Op 08749 [178 AD3d 1174]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2019

Matter of Panchame v. Staples, Inc.

The claimant, Miriam Panchame, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied her application for review. The Board denied the application because it found the claimant failed to comply with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1), specifically by responding "n/a" to question 15 on the RB-89 form, which asks for the objection or exception interposed to a WCLJ ruling. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding a rational basis for the Board's determination that the application was incomplete. The court acknowledged its own discretion to disregard the incomplete application but upheld the Board's decision, citing its lack of authority to overturn a rationally based Board determination.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewAdministrative AppealProcedural ComplianceBoard RulesRB-89 ApplicationClaimant BenefitsLabor Market AttachmentTemporary Partial DisabilityDue Process
References
12
Case No. ADJ3702111 (VNO 0549040)
Regular
Nov 19, 2009

GEYRI AGUILAR vs. STAPLES, INC., ESIS

Defendant's petition for removal is denied because the panel QME substantially complied with the requirements of AD Rule 36(a), and WCAB Rule 10510 does not apply to the QME.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorPQME PanelService of ReportTimelinessSubstantial ComplianceWCAB Rule 10510Administrative Director Rule 36(a)Administrative Director Rule 38(a)Claims Administrator
References
0
Case No. VNO 441705
Regular
Feb 22, 2008

ELIAN LANGLET vs. STAPLES, ACE USA

The Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration, rescinding the prior order that removed the lien claim from the calendar. The Board found that the WCJ's initial determination of lack of jurisdiction based on the lien filing date was premature. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by the WCJ to address the dispute over the lien filing date and notice.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code 4903.5Compromise and ReleaseJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJOff calendarRescinded
References
0
Case No. ADJ8583938 ADJ8584068
Regular
Aug 20, 2014

DALIA PEREZ vs. STAPLES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ESIS

In this workers' compensation case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the Petition for Removal filed by the applicant, Dalia Perez. The dismissal was based on the finding that the petition was not timely filed. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the administrative law judge's report recommending dismissal. This order means the applicant's attempt to remove the case from the administrative process failed due to procedural timeliness.

Petition for RemovalTimely-filedAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissedStaplesAce American Insurance CompanyESISADJ8583938ADJ8584068
References
0
Case No. ADJ10164152
Regular
Sep 15, 2016

MASOUD SHADMEHR vs. STAPLES; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ADMINISTERED BY BROADSPIRE

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal that was dismissed and denied, respectively. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the underlying decision to be an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary ruling, not a final order, thus precluding reconsideration. Furthermore, the Board denied removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm necessitating this extraordinary remedy. The Board did, however, agree that a shared address and phone number between the qualified medical examiner and primary treating physician raised concerns about impartiality.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory Procedural DecisionEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
6
Case No. ADJ10882656, ADJ11049952
Regular
Feb 05, 2019

MARITHZA JUAREZ vs. LEVY RESTAURANT -STAPLES CENTER, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves Marithza Juarez's petition for removal after her attorneys were relieved by the WCJ. Juarez argued she cannot represent herself and cannot find new counsel. The WCAB granted the petition, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the matter to the trial level. The Board did not rule on the merits of the attorneys' withdrawal.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantAttorneys of RecordWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJRescind OrderTrial LevelFurther ProceedingsDecision After Removal
References
0
Case No. ADJ7838891
Regular
Jan 07, 2014

, Nelson Paul Espinoza vs. STAPLES, INC., and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the initial award. The Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration and amended the award. Specifically, the Board affirmed the finding of injury AOE/COE to the applicant's right knee and low back, but removed the left knee from the compensable injuries. The applicant had argued the medical evaluations were not substantial evidence and the defendant had a continuing obligation to pay benefits.

WCABADJ7838891EspinozaStaples IncAce American Insurance CompanyESISPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAOE/COEAgreed Medical Evaluators
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Blyden

Defendant was convicted of first-degree assault for striking Purcell “Rap” Brown in the jaw with a stapling gun. He appealed his conviction, arguing two main points: the court's refusal to disqualify a juror who admitted prejudice against minorities, and the denial of his statutory right to a speedy trial. The court affirmed the conviction, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision regarding the juror's expurgatory oath, which was deemed sufficient. Additionally, the court determined that the periods of delay attributed to discovery and defendant's requests were excludable, thus concluding that the People were not responsible for an unexcused delay exceeding six months. The judgment was unanimously affirmed.

First Degree AssaultJuror DisqualificationRacial PrejudiceExpurgatory OathSpeedy TrialCriminal Procedure LawImpartial JuryJury SelectionAppellate ReviewAffirmative Action
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2004

Howell v. Bacc Builders, Inc.

The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied its motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The plaintiff was injured by a falling steel door at a Staples store, alleging the defendant's earlier actions created a dangerous condition. The defendant argued its alleged negligence was not the proximate cause and it lacked notice, having left the premises and a third party having moved the door. The appellate court found the defendant established a prima facie case for summary judgment. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, leading to the reversal of the original order, the granting of summary judgment, and the dismissal of the complaint.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentNegligenceProximate CauseAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilitySteel Door AccidentMaintenance WorkerDuty of CareLack of Notice
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shaffer v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

A plaintiff was injured on a construction site while attempting to guide a scaffolding bridge, causing him to twist his back. He was secured by a safety belt on a scaffold 14 feet above the ground, and the bridge was being lowered by a makeshift pulley controlled by a co-worker. Special Term denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1), citing a factual question about the lowering procedure. The appellate court, however, determined that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable based on the 'falling worker or objects' test from Staples v Town of Amherst. Consequently, the order was modified, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing the plaintiff's cause of action under Labor Law § 240(1).

Scaffolding AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentPersonal InjuryWorkplace InjuryConstruction SiteFalling ObjectAppellate ReviewNegligenceWorker Safety
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 10 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