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. ADJ7272943
Regular
Jul 03, 2014

SARA ROSALES vs. COURTESY PARKING, INC., PMA INSURANCE GROUP, ACE COMPLETE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the dismissal of Transtar Translations' lien claim due to non-appearance at a lien conference. Transtar argued they were present but failed to sign in, an error the WCJ recommended be corrected. The Board rescinded the dismissal order and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien ClaimantReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationLien ConferenceOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimNon-AppearanceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJRescindedTrial Level
References
0
Case No. Nos. 27-29
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2021

The People v. Kenneth Slade , The People v. Kieth Brooks, The People v. Charo N. Allen

This opinion addresses three appeals consolidated to determine the facial sufficiency of accusatory instruments when a translator assists witnesses with limited-English proficiency. Justice Garcia, writing for the majority of the New York Court of Appeals, affirmed in one case and reversed in two, generally holding that an accusatory instrument is facially sufficient even if a translator was used, as long as it does not facially indicate a defect or misinterpretation. The Court found that a translator acts as a language conduit and does not create an additional layer of hearsay for pleading purposes, and that the CPL does not mandate a certificate of translation. Dissenting opinions by Justices Rivera and Wilson argued for clearer rules requiring documentation of translator qualifications and accuracy to ensure the reliability and non-hearsay nature of such instruments, emphasizing the importance of these procedural safeguards, especially given the high rate of plea bargains in misdemeanor cases.

Accusatory Instrument SufficiencyLimited English ProficiencyTranslator RoleHearsay RuleSpeedy Trial MotionFacial SufficiencyMisdemeanor ComplaintsSupporting DepositionsCriminal Procedure LawCPL 30.30
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Yovanny L.

This case addresses the accuracy of court interpreter translations in a juvenile delinquency proceeding. The Assistant Corporation Counsel moved to strike the complainant's testimony, alleging significant errors by the court-appointed Mandarin interpreter. After conducting a hearing and considering testimony from both the Assistant Corporation Counsel and the interpreter, the court acknowledged that some minor errors in translation and interpreter conduct occurred. However, the court ultimately found these errors to be isolated instances and not sufficiently serious or pervasive to cause major prejudice to any party. Consequently, the drastic remedy of striking the testimony and starting anew was denied, and the trial was ordered to resume with a different Mandarin interpreter.

Juvenile DelinquencyCourt InterpretersTranslation AccuracyDue Process RightsEvidentiary MotionTestimony AdmissibilityMandarin LanguageFamily Court ProcedureJudicial ReviewProcedural Errors
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heredia v. Transport S.A.S., Inc.

Plaintiff Henry Heredia moved to remand his personal injury case back to New York state court after defendants Transport S.A.S., Inc. and Mercurio Presenza removed it to federal court. Defendants argued that their removal was untimely because plaintiff's initial service of the summons and complaint was improper, citing non-compliance with the Hague Convention regarding translation. The court found that plaintiff's service complied with both New York Vehicle and Traffic Law section 253 and Article 10 of the Hague Convention, which permits service by registered mail without requiring translation in Canada. Furthermore, the court determined that the service satisfied constitutional due process requirements. Therefore, the 30-day removal period was triggered when Presenza received the documents on October 14, 1999, making defendants' December 16, 1999 removal untimely, and the plaintiff's motion to remand was granted.

Removal jurisdictionDiversity jurisdictionHague ConventionService of processTimeliness of removalNew York Vehicle and Traffic LawDue processNon-resident motoristsInternational serviceFederal court remand
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 1998

Quispe v. Lemle & Wolff, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a lower court's denial of the defendants' motion for a new trial on liability. The central issue on appeal was the trial court's refusal to admit a hospital triage report into evidence. The report contained conflicting accounts of how the plaintiff sustained injuries, specifically whether she fell from a fire escape or jumped from a window to escape a fire, both from a height of eight feet. The court found the report inadmissible under both the business entry exception to the hearsay rule and as an admission against interest. This was due to the defendants' failure to prove that the plaintiff was the direct source of the recorded information, as the plaintiff spoke only Spanish and the nurse relied on unidentified EMS workers and a hospital translator. Furthermore, the court noted that the cause of the injury was not pertinent to the plaintiff's diagnosis or treatment, which further precluded its admission under the business records exception. The defendants' argument that the translator acted as the plaintiff's agent was also rejected as lacking factual support.

Hearsay RuleBusiness Entry ExceptionAdmission Against InterestHospital Triage ReportMedical Records AdmissibilityTranslation AccuracyInterpreter CompetencyCause of InjuryNew Trial MotionAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyes v. Arco Wentworth Management Corp.

The plaintiff, German Reyes, was injured while employed by Grasskeepers Landscaping, Inc. on property owned by Ramapo Cirque Homeowners Association, Inc. and managed by Arco Wentworth Management Corporation. The injury occurred when his lawn mower entered a hole, causing it to tip and injure his leg. Reyes filed a lawsuit alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), citing both unsafe premises conditions and defective equipment due to the absence of an emergency shut-off switch. Ramapo moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked supervisory control over the work and that the work was routine maintenance, thus falling outside the scope of Labor Law § 241 (6). The court denied Ramapo's motion for summary judgment, determining that Ramapo failed to meet its prima facie burden regarding premises liability and that a triable issue of fact existed under Labor Law § 241 (6). The court also discussed the inadmissibility of the plaintiff's English-language affidavit without a qualified translator's affidavit, but noted that other admissible evidence, such as the translated deposition transcript, still raised sufficient issues of fact to defeat summary judgment. Arco's separate motion for summary judgment was denied as premature.

Workers' CompensationPremises LiabilityDangerous EquipmentSummary JudgmentLabor LawNotice RequirementSupervision and ControlConstruction SafetyExcavationOSHA Violations
References
45
Case No. ADJ6931203
Regular
Sep 30, 2015

JESUS AYALA vs. TRANSTAR INDUSTRIES, CNA CLAIMS PLUS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Jesus Ayala's petition for reconsideration because it was not taken from a "final" order, as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the petition seeking both reconsideration and removal was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory Procedural DecisionEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
6
Case No. ADJ3608808
Regular
Feb 11, 2009

JUAN MARTINEZ vs. J.R. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB granted reconsideration to allow the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to provide a supplemental report addressing the applicant's petition, which had been translated from Spanish. After reviewing the reports, the WCAB affirmed the original Findings and Award. The matter is now concluded with the affirmation of the prior decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardSupplemental ReportPetition for ReconsiderationWCJAffirmDefendantApplicantState Compensation Insurance Fund
References
0
Case No. ADJ4130207 (ANA 0407943)
Regular
Jan 14, 2013

ALEJANDRA ZATARAIN, aka WENDY OSUNA vs. onE SOURCE; ACE as administered by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an order dismissing lien claimant New Age Translations' lien. The dismissal occurred without notice to the lien claimant, and the Board found this procedurally improper. A subsequent agreement between parties settling the lien would have been meaningless if the dismissal remained in place. The Board's order allows the parties to resolve the lien in accordance with their agreement.

Lien DismissalPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantOrder of Lien DismissalNotice of Intent to DismissWCJRescindedSettlement AgreementAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ7697991
Regular
Jun 14, 2019

LUIS RAMIREZ PARRA vs. NEW ORANGE HILLS, INC., ILLINOIS MIDWEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied lien claimant Psychological Assessment Services's petition for reconsideration as untimely. Lien claimant Professional Translation Services's petition for reconsideration was also denied, but on procedural grounds as it was filed one day late. The WCAB clarified that the filing deadline for a petition for reconsideration is jurisdictional and requires actual receipt by the WCAB, not just mailing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantTimelinessDismissalJurisdictionalEAMSJoint Findings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ Report
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 37 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