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. ADJ8614160
Regular
Jun 10, 2014

VIKTOR CHERNYETSKY (Dec'd), SVETLANA CHERNYETSKY (Widow & Guardian ad litem), CAROLINA CHERNYETSKY (Daughter) vs. SLAVIC MISSIONARY CHURCH, INC., BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, SOUTHLAND CLAIMS SERVICE, INC.

Defendant Slavic Missionary Church, Inc. sought removal of this workers' compensation case, arguing the WCJ erred in setting trial. However, the trial has already occurred and the matter has been submitted for decision. Consequently, the Board found the Petition for Removal to be moot. The defendant retains the right to file a petition for reconsideration if an adverse decision is issued.

Petition for Removalmootdismissedtrial datereconsiderationLabor Code 5900EAMSWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSLAVIC MISSIONARY CHURCHBROTHERHOOD MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2004

Rudovic v. Board of Managers of Park Manor Condominium

The plaintiffs, including Viktor Rudovic, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted summary judgment to M.P.J. Realty, Inc., dismissing the complaint based on the exclusivity of the workers’ compensation remedy. The appeal also concerned the denial of the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 (6) claims against M.P.J. Realty, Inc. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order and affirmed the judgment insofar as appealed from. The court found that a special employment relationship existed between Viktor Rudovic and M.P.J. Realty, Inc., thereby shielding M.P.J. Realty, Inc., from the action under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6).

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentLabor LawSpecial Employment RelationshipAppellate ReviewDismissal of ComplaintAffirmed JudgmentDamagesEmployee Rights
References
4
Case No. ADJ9984539
Regular
Jul 17, 2017

VIKTOR JIMENEZ vs. ROSE HILL COMPANY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a denied Request for Authorization (RFA) for knee surgery due to alleged defective utilization review (UR) communication. The applicant argued the UR denial was untimely because it wasn't served on his attorney within the required two business days. However, the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the UR determination was timely communicated. The Board reasoned that the rule requires service within two business days, not actual receipt, and inferred timely mailing given the attorney's eventual acknowledgment. Consequently, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

Utilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationProspective ReviewAdministrative Director's RuleProof of ServiceBodam v. San Bernardino County Dept. of Social ServicesLabor Code section 4610(g)(3)(A)Medical Provider NetworkWCJPetition for Reconsideration
References
1
Case No. 93 CV 4888 (ADS)
Regular Panel Decision

Wenzel v. Nassau County Police Department

The plaintiff, Mary Ann Wenzel, a former Nassau County Police Officer, sued the Nassau County Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging civil rights violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants sought dismissal, claiming the statute of limitations had expired. Wenzel argued for tolling the statute due to insanity under CPLR § 208. Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky recommended against tolling, finding Wenzel capable of protecting her legal rights. District Judge Spatt adopted this recommendation, ruling that Wenzel did not meet the "insanity" criteria for tolling the statute of limitations. Consequently, the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Civil RightsStatute of LimitationsTolling ProvisionInsanity Defense42 U.S.C. Section 1983CPLR Section 208Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissDepression
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 1996

Labodin v. State

The appellate court affirmed an order from the Court of Claims that granted the claimants' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The defendant, the State of New York, had appealed this order. The court reiterated that Labor Law § 240 (1) mandates the provision of safe scaffolding and other protective devices for workers. The claimants, notably Viktor Labodin, presented evidentiary proof that the State failed to provide proper protection, directly causing injuries. The State's opposition was found to be unavailing, failing to raise a genuine issue of fact. The decision emphasized that once a failure to provide necessary safety devices is established, absolute liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) applies, irrespective of any contributory negligence.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffoldingWorker SafetyAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseCourt of ClaimsContributory Negligence
References
5
Showing 1-5 of 5 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