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. 525010
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2018

Matter of Esposito v. Tutor Perini Corp.

Claimant Joseph Esposito sought workers' compensation benefits for various lung diseases, alleging causation from workplace pollutant exposure while employed by Tutor Perini Corporation. The Workers' Compensation Board initially precluded the reports and testimony of claimant's medical expert, Lester Ploss, due to non-compliance with regulations governing independent medical examination reports, specifically the failure to submit referenced documents to the Board. Ultimately, the Board found insufficient credible evidence to establish the claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the ruling. The Board credited the testimony of Dr. Monroe Karetzky, who attributed Esposito's pulmonary issues to cigarette smoking rather than his work environment, and also discredited the claimant's work history and personal smoking habits.

Workers' Compensation LawIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Evidentiary RulingsMedical Expert TestimonyCausation (Medical)Pulmonary DiseaseCredibility DeterminationsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewRegulatory Compliance
References
5
Case No. ADJ4631701
Regular
Oct 19, 2012

ROCIO SALINAS vs. TUTOR & SALIBA, INTERCARE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's previous decision in the case of Salinas v. Tutor & Saliba. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision. This order is not a final decision on the merits, and parties retain the right to seek reconsideration of the future WCJ decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRescinded DecisionFurther ProceedingsWCJ DecisionTutor & SalibaIntercareADJ4631701OAK District OfficeOpinion and Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ9360252
Regular
Sep 09, 2015

TRISHA FITZGERALD vs. TUTOR SALIBA, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to further study the case of Trisha Fitzgerald versus Tutor Saliba and Zurich North America. However, the parties subsequently executed a Compromise and Release agreement. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the original April 21, 2015 Findings of Fact and Awards. The matter has been returned to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the Compromise and Release, with the option to reinstate the prior award if the settlement is not approved.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactAwardsCompromise and ReleaseSettlementTrial LevelAdministrative Law JudgeRescindedReturned
References
0
Case No. 12cv3536, 12cv6285, 13cv3123
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2014

In re Bridge Construction Services of Florida, Inc.

Claimant Jose Ayala sustained injuries after falling from a barge on the Hudson River, alleging negligence by a tugboat. Petitioners Bridge Construction Services of Florida, Inc., Hughes Brothers, Inc., and Tutor Perini Corp., owners and charterers of the vessels, filed for exoneration or limitation of liability. Jose and Teresa Ayala filed claims for negligence and New York Labor Law violations. The court denied summary judgment for Hughes and Tutor Perini, citing material facts disputes regarding seaworthiness and negligence. Bridge's motion was partially granted, dismissing Teresa Ayala's loss of consortium claim, but denied regarding exoneration. New York Labor Law claims against TriState Electric Contracting, Inc. were dismissed without prejudice.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawLimitation of LiabilityExonerationJones ActSeaman StatusUnseaworthinessNegligenceSummary JudgmentBarge Accident
References
83
Case No. ADJ10774501
Regular
Aug 14, 2018

UTUMA BELFREY vs. TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION dba FISK ELECTRIC COMPANY, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision awarding temporary disability benefits, finding that the defense presented substantial evidence suggesting the applicant reached maximum medical improvement earlier than determined. Specifically, the Board considered the report of Dr. Dixit, which stated the applicant was P&S on March 7, 2017, and contrasted it with the defense's argument that other QME reports lacked substantiality. The Board rescinded the original award and remanded the case for further proceedings to clarify the applicant's MMI status. This ensures a proper determination of temporary disability indemnity based on conflicting medical opinions.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Disability IndemnityMaximum Medical ImprovementPermanent and StationaryFindings Award and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical ExaminerOrthopedic SurgeonEMGNerve Conduction Study
References
11
Case No. ADJ3227442 (OAK 0279937)
Regular
Jan 12, 2009

ANTONIO BRAS vs. TUTOR-SALIBA, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.

The Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was filed more than a year after the allowed time and is dismissed.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONFINDINGS AND AWARDINDUSTRIAL INJURYPERMANENT DISABILITYAPPORTIONMENTFURTHER MEDICAL TREATMENTVOCATIONAL REHABILITATIONDECLARATION OF READINESSATTORNEY REPRESENTATION
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gioia v. Middletown School District

Claimant, a home tutor, was injured after falling in a public library parking lot while conducting research in preparation for her assignments. She applied for workers' compensation benefits, which were initially awarded by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, prompting an appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding no evidence that the employer encouraged or benefited from the claimant's independent library research, thus ruling that her injury did not fall under the 'special errand' exception to the general rule that injuries sustained while commuting are not compensable.

Special Errand ExceptionCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentOff-Premises InjuryCommuting RuleEmployer BenefitEmployee VolitionAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmedHome Tutor
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07107 [211 AD3d 1258]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

Matter of Gisser (iTutor.com, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

This case addresses whether Nicole Gisser was an employee of iTutor.com, Inc. for unemployment insurance purposes. The Department of Labor initially found an employment relationship, which an Administrative Law Judge subsequently overruled. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed the ALJ's decision, reinstating the finding of employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that iTutor.com, Inc. exercised sufficient control over its tutors, including the claimant, to establish an employment relationship under unemployment insurance law, based on factors like screening, payment, scheduling, and performance feedback.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorOnline Tutoring PlatformDepartment of LaborAdministrative LawAppeal BoardSubstantial EvidenceControl TestRemuneration
References
11
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 05988 [142 AD3d 989]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2016

Vatavuk v. Genting New York, LLC

Plaintiff Branko Vatavuk sustained personal injuries when a piece of cold board fell on his hard hat at a construction site. He initiated an action against Genting New York, LLC, and Tutor Perini Corporation, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing these causes of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The court found that the defendants established a prima facie case for dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim because the object was not being hoisted or secured. Similarly, the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was dismissed as the work area was not typically exposed to falling objects, making the cited regulations inapplicable.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentFalling ObjectAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyNegligencePremises LiabilityNew York Appellate Law
References
14
Showing 1-9 of 9 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