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. ADJ11027267
Regular
Feb 03, 2023

LUIS ROSALES vs. IRELAND TILE AND STONE INC., SEDGWICK 14779 SAN DIEGO

This case involves an injured tile setter, Luis Rosales, who claimed lumbar radiculopathy stemming from an admitted industrial lumbar contusion. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior order, upholding a finding of 0% permanent disability. This decision was based on the Qualified Medical Examiner's (QME) reports, which the Board found to be substantial evidence. The Board specifically rejected the applicant's argument that the QME's opinions were inconsistent, clarifying that the QME found the sacral cyst unrelated to the lumbar contusion, not that the symptoms were unrelated to the cyst.

Petition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical ExaminerPQMEDr. Sonusupplemental reportsubstantial evidencelumbar contusionsacral cystradiculopathypermanent disability
References
2
Case No. 89 CV 3290
Regular Panel Decision

United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America v. Tile Helpers Union Local 88

This case involves three related actions where the plaintiff, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America ('Carpenters'), seeks to recover assets from unnamed defendant local unions. The local unions had disaffiliated from the Tile, Marble, Terrazzo, Finishers, Shop-workers and Granite Cutters International Union ('Tile Workers'), which subsequently merged into the Carpenters. The Carpenters assert that the local unions were obligated to forfeit their assets upon disaffiliation according to the Tile Workers' constitution. The defendant local unions raised affirmative defenses, challenging the Carpenters' standing by disputing the validity of the merger due to an allegedly improperly adopted constitutional amendment and a failure to disclose 'imprudent' investments. The court ruled that the defendant local unions lacked standing to challenge the internal union merger process and consequently struck their affirmative defenses. The court also denied the Carpenters' motion to add the Tile Workers as a plaintiff.

Union DisaffiliationAsset RecoveryLabor Union MergerStanding DoctrineAffirmative DefenseLabor LawInternal Union AffairsFederal JurisdictionWorkers' RightsConstitutional Amendment Challenge
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nardolillo v. Sovinsky

Plaintiffs, members of the Tile, Marble and Terrazzo Helpers Subordinate Union No. 8, sought to recover funds contributed by their employer to a trust fund. They argued that the discontinuation of employer contributions rendered them ineligible for benefits, making the trust's purpose impossible and leading to unjust enrichment by the fund. Defendants countered that such payments would violate the trust agreement and IRS provisions, maintaining that plaintiffs remained eligible. The court determined that the fund was a common trust, not individual escrowed accounts, and upheld the trustees' interpretation that ensured plaintiffs' continued eligibility, preventing a forfeiture of rights. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion was denied, and the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted.

Union Trust FundEmployee BenefitsEmployer ContributionsTrust AgreementBenefit EligibilityFund AdministrationBreach of TrustFiduciary DutyDismissal MotionLabor-Management Relations Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Brotherhood of Carpenters Joiners v. Tile Helpers Union Local 88

This case involves the disaffiliation of Tile Finishers Union Local No 88 (old Local 88) from its parent, TMT International Union, to join the Bricklayers. Subsequently, TMT International merged into United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of American (the Carpenters). The Carpenters, as successor to TMT International, sued the new local (Tile Helpers Union Local 88), a Mortuary Fund, and former officers, seeking damages and asset transfer, claiming old Local 88 improperly transferred assets into a mortuary account to evade forfeiture to TMT International. The court found the Carpenters' attempt to establish a trusteeship over old Local 88 invalid. However, it upheld the validity of establishing the mortuary fund by old Local 88, despite the intention to evade forfeiture, as the local's by-laws implicitly permitted such funds. Claims regarding other asset expenditures and return of books and records were referred to a Magistrate Judge.

DisaffiliationUnion AssetsMortuary FundTrusteeshipLabor-Management Relations ActLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActSummary JudgmentLocal UnionInternational UnionBreach of Contract
References
3
Case No. 534802
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2023

Matter of Ayars v. Navillus Tile Co.

Claimant Mario Ayars, a cement and concrete laborer, sustained a right knee injury in January 2017. His workers' compensation claim was established, and he was evaluated for permanency. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found a 66.67% schedule loss of use (SLU) of his right leg, but the Workers' Compensation Board later determined a 20% SLU. The Board's decision was based on its assessment that medical opinions were inconsistent with impairment guidelines and applied inapplicable special considerations. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, finding it was based on an inaccurate reading of the medical record, specifically regarding Dr. DiBenedetto's IME report. The case has been remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for a proper assessment of the evidence and a redetermination of the SLU or classification.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseRight Knee InjuryIndependent Medical ExaminationMedical GuidelinesImpairment AssessmentAppellate ReviewRemittalConflicting Medical OpinionsKnee Surgery
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2010

Ghany v. BC Tile Contractors, Inc.

A stonemason sustained injuries to his knee and wrist after tripping over a small stone while carrying a heavy stone at a worksite. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the fall was due to a ground-level trip, not a direct consequence of gravity. The Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was also dismissed because the accident occurred in an open, grassy area, not a designated passageway, and the small stone was an inherent result of the work. Common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against the general contractor, A.F. & Sons, LLC, were dismissed due to lack of evidence of supervision, control, or notice of the alleged defect. Similar claims against BC Tile Contractors, Inc. were dismissed as it was merely a subcontractor, not a general contractor, and did not supervise the plaintiff's employer.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Summary JudgmentAppellate AffirmationTripping HazardWorksite SafetyGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityBronx County Court
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grilikhes v. International Tile & Stone Show Expos

Plaintiff, a union carpenter, suffered an injury while dismantling an exhibit at the Javits Center. He filed a lawsuit against Metropolitan Exposition Services, Inc. (MES) and International Tile & Stone Show, Inc. (ITSS), alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Both MES and ITSS moved for summary judgment, which the lower court granted. MES contended that the plaintiff was its special employee, making the claim barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). ITSS argued it was neither an owner nor a contractor, thus not liable under the Labor Law. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against MES, concluding that MES was the plaintiff's special employer. The court also affirmed the dismissal against ITSS, determining that ITSS lacked the necessary control over the worksite to be considered an "owner" for Labor Law liability.

Special EmployeeLabor Law ViolationsWorkers' Compensation BarSummary Judgment MotionPremises LiabilityWorksite ControlContractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityAppellate DecisionJavits Center
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mamaroneck Village Tile Distributors, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Board

Mamaroneck Village Tile Distributors, Inc. received a stop-work order after an investigator found evidence of employees cutting stone while wearing company T-shirts, despite the president's claim that the company had no employees and lacked workers' compensation insurance. Mamaroneck sought a redetermination, arguing it had no employees and therefore no obligation for insurance. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) credited the investigator's testimony and upheld the order, finding substantial evidence of employment. Mamaroneck appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that the procedures provided ample due process and that substantial evidence supported the WCLJ's determination that Mamaroneck had employees.

Workers' Compensation LawStop-Work OrderUninsured EmployerSubstantial EvidenceDue ProcessAdministrative AppealEmployee StatusAppellate ReviewNew York LawLabor Law Enforcement
References
14
Case No. ADJ9385114
Regular
Feb 03, 2023

MICHELLE RICHMOND vs. SANTA ROSA TILE SUPPLY, PROCENTURY INSURANCE, ILLINOIS MIDWEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Santa Rosa Tile Supply's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued the Administrative Law Judge erred in awarding 77% permanent disability and in not applying apportionment for a prior 1991 award. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, affirming that the physician properly rebutted the AMA Guides rating using Almaraz/Guzman principles by considering the applicant's limitations in activities of daily living. The Board also upheld the WCJ's decision to apply apportionment solely under Labor Code section 4663, as the defendant failed to demonstrate overlap with the prior award under section 4664.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityAMA GuidesMilpitas Unified School District v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman)Labor Code section 4663Labor Code section 4664Almaraz/GuzmanPQME
References
4
Case No. 19094/2012
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2012

5 Brothers, Inc. v. D.C.M. of New York, LLC

This case involves a dispute between a general contractor, D.C.M. of New York, LLC (DCM), and a subcontractor, Vintage Flooring & Tile Inc. (Vintage), stemming from a construction project for a Best Buy store. The parties had an arbitration agreement, and an arbitrator awarded Vintage $76,539.13. DCM moved to vacate this arbitration award, arguing it was irrational, against public policy, and indefinite, partly due to an alleged willfully exaggerated mechanic's lien by Vintage. Separately, Vintage moved to confirm the award. The court denied DCM's motion to vacate the award, finding that DCM failed to demonstrate the award was irrational or indefinite, and confirmed the arbitration award in favor of Vintage. The court also denied DCM's motion for summary judgment on its lien exaggeration claim, stating that the arbitration implicitly rejected the exaggeration claim by finding Vintage's claim meritorious.

Arbitration AwardVacaturConfirmationSubcontractor DisputeGeneral ContractorMechanic's LienLien ExaggerationPublic PolicyIrrational AwardIndefinite Award
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 79 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