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. ADJ3995122 (OAK 0343980)
Regular
Aug 13, 2013

ROSA GOMEZ vs. NOB HILL FOODS, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal to address the exclusion of sub rosa films and investigator testimony. The trial judge had excluded this evidence because it was disclosed late and not shown to treating doctors. However, the Board found that the defendant properly disclosed the evidence and investigators at the mandatory settlement conference per Labor Code § 5502(d)(3). The admissibility of the sub rosa films and investigator testimony is now deferred to the trial judge.

Sub rosa filmsremovalmandatory settlement conferencedisclosureevidence exclusioninvestigative reportsLabor Code section 5502petition for removalpetition for reconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ4707980 (VNO 0543260) ADJ3907003 (VNO 0543258) ADJ7500629
Regular
Apr 05, 2012

RAMON SALAZAR vs. CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE, ACE USA Administered By CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC.

The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding the WCJ's order for a sanctions hearing and the appearance of the defendant's claims examiner. While acknowledging the duty to disclose evidence before a trial, the Board found no authority requiring pre-expedited hearing disclosure of sub rosa films, thus negating grounds for sanctions. The Board also determined an affidavit from the claims examiner would suffice, making her live appearance unnecessary. The order for the sub rosa films to be sent to the Agreed Medical Examiner was affirmed.

sub rosa filmsexpedited hearingsanctionsPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical Examinertemporary disability indemnitymedical treatmentclaims examineraffidavitLabor Code section 5813
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05144
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2022

Rosa v. 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P.

This case involves an appeal regarding the summary judgment motions in a Labor Law action stemming from an electrical accident. Decedent Danny Rosa, an employee of June Electrical Corp., was electrocuted while working on an energized bus duct at a building managed by Bridgestreet Corporate Housing, LLC and owned by 47 East 34th Street (NY), L.P. and CIM Group, L.P. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims but denied dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The Appellate Division modified the orders, reinstating the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against 47 East 34th, CIM, and Bridgestreet, finding issues of fact regarding whether Rosa was compelled to work on an energized bus duct and the supervision of the work. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for June Electrical Corp. on indemnification and contribution claims, noting the failure to eliminate factual issues regarding grave injury.

Electrical AccidentLabor Law ClaimsSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyBuilding ConstructionElectrocutionAppellate ReviewDuty of CareCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial Code Violations
References
17
Case No. 161024/17, 595145/20, 595264/20
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2026

Fernandez v. Sub 412 Assoc., LLC

Plaintiff Juan Fernandez, a laborer, sustained injuries when a floating ceiling collapsed on him while cleaning a construction site. The ceiling, constructed by Anfield Interiors, Inc., was improperly installed with steel rods affixed to non-structural sheetrock instead of the concrete slab. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and denied Sub 412 Associates, LLC and 2398 Realty Associates, LLC's motion to dismiss this claim. The Appellate Division affirmed these decisions. The Appellate Division also modified a third order, granting Nucor Construction Corp. summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against it, and granting Nucor full contractual indemnification from Anfield, while striking Aramis, Inc.'s name from that indemnification order.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 200Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon Law IndemnificationVicarious LiabilityAppellate DivisionFalling ObjectDefective Work
References
6
Case No. CV-23-1582
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Rosa Romero

Claimant, Rosa Romero, sustained work-related injuries in 2015, including to her right knee, head, neck, and back. She was classified with a permanent partial disability but initially denied awards due to a failure to demonstrate attachment to the labor market. Following a change in case law, claimant sought a Schedule Loss of Use (SLU) award for her right leg, supported by her treating physician's opinion of a 65% SLU. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board denied this request, citing prior findings and the absence of a prior SLU application. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, ruling that since no initial award was made based on the nonschedule classification, claimant is entitled to an SLU award for her permanent partial impairments. The case has been remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Schedule Loss of UsePermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsWage-Earning CapacityLabor Market AttachmentRight Knee InjuryMedical ImprovementAppellate ReviewRemittalCase Law Change
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosa v. Astrue

Ludina Rosa sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision to deny her claim for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Rosa had a complex administrative history, including multiple SSI applications and a prior decision by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) finding her disabled for a specific period but not for the period prior to October 1, 1986. The Commissioner moved to dismiss Rosa's complaint challenging the ALJ's pre-1986 disability finding. The court, presided over by a United States Magistrate Judge, reviewed the Commissioner's motion and found that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial medical evidence, including findings from various doctors indicating Rosa's capacity for light work. Therefore, the Commissioner's motion to dismiss was granted.

Disability benefits appealSocial Security AdministrationSSI benefits denialFederal court reviewAdministrative Law Judge decisionResidual functional capacityMedical vocational guidelinesTreating physician rule exceptionSubstantial evidenceLight work capacity
References
20
Case No. 106 SSM 16
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

The Matter of Rosa Rizzo v. Thomas P. DiNapoli

Rosa Rizzo, a police officer, appealed a decision denying her accidental disability retirement benefits after she sustained a finger injury when a heavy metal door, known to slam automatically, was blown shut by a gust of wind. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that an injury resulting from ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event is not an accidental injury, especially since Rizzo was aware of the door's tendency to slam. The court concluded that the known condition was a risk of the worksite but not the cause of a compensable accident under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363. Judge Wilson dissented, arguing that the incident was an accident by common sense definition, criticizing the "reasonably anticipated" doctrine and the inconsistent application of the law, and calling for legislative action to clarify the statutory scheme for disability benefits.

Police OfficerAccidental Disability RetirementWorkplace InjuryGust of WindDefective DoorOrdinary Employment Risk"Unexpected Event" Doctrine"Reasonably Anticipated" StandardNew York Court of AppealsDissenting Opinion
References
40
Case No. ADJ1479326 (ANA 0411799) ADJ7233578
Regular
Oct 07, 2014

JONATHAN DUONG vs. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board overturned a WCJ's decision to exclude sub rosa surveillance video. The Board found no legal basis for excluding the video obtained in a mobile home park parking lot and a grocery store, as the applicant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in those public areas. The Board determined that the defendant would suffer significant prejudice from the exclusion, justifying removal of the case. Therefore, the sub rosa video was ruled admissible and may be provided to medical evaluators.

Sub rosa videoremovalreconsiderationadmissibilityinvasion of privacyreasonable expectation of privacycivil liabilityworkers' compensation fraudmedical-legal evaluatorworkers' compensation appeals board
References
20
Case No. ADJ4617752 (VNO 0390167), ADJ1668605 (VNO 0470519)
Regular
Nov 01, 2010

ROBERT SCHENCK vs. COLIN CLINTON, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, AFFORDABLE QUALITY MOVING & STORAGE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves applicant Robert Schenck's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. Schenck argued the judge erred by admitting sub-rosa video evidence and by not finding total disability based on Dr. Lavi's opinion. The Board denied the petition, finding the sub-rosa evidence was properly admitted and that Dr. Lavi's opinion lacked substantial evidentiary support for total disability. The Board affirmed the WCJ's reliance on defense medical reports finding permanent disability of 29% after apportionment.

SubrogationSub rosa evidenceMandatory Settlement ConferencePermanent DisabilityApportionmentWorkers' Compensation JudgeReconsiderationSubstantial EvidenceQualified Medical ExaminerDoctor-shopping
References
4
Case No. ADJ387595 (VNO 0552648)
Regular
Jul 12, 2016

JOEL CARDENAS vs. ML ELECTRIC WORKS, INC, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, modifying a prior order by an administrative law judge. The Board removed the issues of penalty, costs, and sanctions related to the disclosure of sub rosa video and surveillance logs from trial consideration. However, the Board affirmed the remainder of the judge's order, which had compelled the defendant to serve the sub rosa materials and produce the claims adjuster and documents at trial. This decision aimed to prevent further discovery beyond the mandatory settlement conference cutoff while still requiring disclosure of the surveillance evidence.

Sub rosa videoPetition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery cut-offDue processIrreparable harmClaims adjusterLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)PenaltySanctions
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 226 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