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. ADJ2033145 (LAO 0877321) ADJ1126357 (LAO 0877370)
Regular
Jun 06, 2012

PABLO RAMIREZ vs. BAU FURNITURE MANUFACTURING, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved applicant Pablo Ramirez and defendants Bau Furniture Manufacturing and Berkshire Hathaway. The Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision. The amended decision affirmed the original ruling but dismissed a remaining lien balance for Paramount Physicians Medical Group with prejudice. This modification specifically addressed a lien claim previously asserted.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPABLO RAMIREZBAU FURNITURE MANUFACTURINGBERKSHIRE HATHAWAYADJ2033145ADJ1126357OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJ
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07641 [189 AD3d 1857]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Vargas v. Hampton Inn 35Th St.

Giovanny Vargas, the claimant, established a workers' compensation claim for injuries stemming from a 2012 accident. He sought to modify his awards from tentative to total disability rates for a period between 2012 and 2013. The Workers' Compensation Board, in a March 2019 decision, ruled that the award was properly modified to reflect a partial disability rate, considering medical evidence and his receipt of unemployment benefits. Vargas subsequently applied for reconsideration and/or full Board review, which the Board denied in June 2019. This appeal is specifically from the June 2019 denial of reconsideration, limiting the Appellate Division's review to whether the Board's denial was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Vargas did not demonstrate newly discovered evidence or a material change in condition, thus finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationPartial DisabilityTotal DisabilityReconsiderationBoard ReviewAppellate ProcedureAbuse of DiscretionJudicial ReviewClaimant's RightsAdministrative Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laniok v. Advisory Committee of the Brainerd Manufacturing Co. Pension Plan

Plaintiff Peter Laniok sued his former employer, Brainerd Manufacturing Company, under ERISA for denying him pension benefits. Laniok argued the waiver he signed, which foreclosed his participation in the company's pension plan due to his age, was void against public policy and violated ERISA's age discrimination provisions and the ADEA. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting the waiver was valid. The court determined that ERISA does not prohibit an employee from knowingly and voluntarily waiving pension rights and found no violation of ERISA's age discrimination provision or ADEA. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Brainerd Manufacturing Company.

ERISAPension BenefitsWaiverAge DiscriminationADEASummary JudgmentEmployee RightsRetirement PlanDefined Benefit PlanPublic Policy
References
14
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00528
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2022

Vargas v. 1166 LLC

Plaintiff Enrique Vargas, a drywall taper, was injured after falling from a scaffold during a construction project. He sought summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, which was denied due to a factual dispute concerning whether his refusal to use available guardrails made him the sole proximate cause of his accident. Defendants 1166 LLC and Verus Construction Services Inc. were granted summary judgment on their third-party contractual indemnification claim against Precision Interior Construction Corp., Vargas's employer. The court also, upon a search of the record, granted defendants summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's common-law negligence claim, concluding there was no basis for finding defendants actively negligent. Consequently, the appellate court unanimously modified the prior order to dismiss the common-law negligence claim and otherwise affirmed it, without costs.

Construction SafetyScaffold AccidentLabor Law § 240(1) LiabilityCommon-Law Negligence DismissalContractual IndemnificationSummary Judgment MotionsSole Proximate Cause DefenseWorksite InjuryAppellate ReviewThird-Party Claim
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co. v. Rubberized Novelty & Plastic Fabric Workers' Union, Local 98

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co., Inc. sought to stay arbitration of a labor dispute with Rubberized Novelty and Plastic Fabric Workers’ Union, Local 98, I.L.G.W.U. The dispute arose after Paramount terminated its manufacturing operations but continued dealing in similar products, leading the union to claim violations of collective bargaining agreements regarding work preservation. Paramount argued the court lacked jurisdiction, that the agreement's relevant clause was an illegal 'hot cargo' clause, and that the agreement was procured by fraud. The District Court denied Paramount's motion to remand and for summary judgment, granting the union's motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed federal jurisdiction under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act and held that the arbitrability of the dispute, including claims of illegality and fraud, falls within the broad arbitration clauses of the collective bargaining agreements.

Labor DisputeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementHot Cargo ClauseWork Preservation ClauseFraud in InducementJurisdictionSummary JudgmentNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2003

Rypkema v. Time Manufacturing Co.

Rose Rypkema and Ted Rypkema sued Time Manufacturing Company for product liability after Rose Rypkema suffered injuries using a "Versalift" boom lift, alleging design defect and breach of warranty. Time moved for summary judgment, seeking to exclude the Rypkemas' expert, Nicholas Bellizzi, whose testimony lacked scientific methodology and testing for proposed alternative designs. District Judge Sweet, applying Daubert and Kumho Tire standards, excluded Bellizzi's testimony. Consequently, with no expert evidence to support the product liability claim, the court granted Time's motion to dismiss the complaint and Savvy Systems, Ltd.'s cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding there was insufficient evidence for product liability.

Product LiabilityExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardKumho Tire StandardSummary JudgmentDesign DefectFailure to WarnEngineering MethodologyAerial LiftLatch Failure
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mera v. Adelphi Manufacturing Co.

Raphael Mera, an employee of Adelphi Manufacturing Co., Inc., was injured while operating a power press and accepted workers' compensation benefits. Mera and his wife subsequently sued Adelphi, alleging intentional harm by instructing employees to operate presses with removed safety guards. Adelphi moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was barred by workers' compensation law. The Supreme Court denied the motion. On appeal, the order was reversed. The court held that workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for employee injuries, and by accepting benefits, Mera forfeited his right to a common-law tort action. The court also found the allegations insufficient to meet the exception for intentional harm, and the claim was further barred by res judicata.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityIntentional Tort ExceptionRes JudicataAppellate ProcedurePersonal Injury LitigationEmployer LiabilityJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissOccupational InjuryNew York Law
References
9
Case No. ADJ4114324 (VNO 0513026), ADJ4070161 (VNO 0521347)
Regular
Jul 18, 2011

JESUS CARDOSO vs. VARGAS FURNITURE MANUFACTURE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the Employment Development Department's (EDD) petition regarding an attorney's fee deduction from its lien. The Board rescinded the prior award, finding that EDD did not waive its right to recover its lien in full, as it had not been properly served with the original decision. Furthermore, the Board clarified that EDD's lien recovery should be limited to the applicant's temporary disability indemnity rate, not its own higher payment rate. The Board also corrected several errors, including applicant's name, employer's insurance status, and the temporary disability rate calculation.

ReconsiderationAmended Joint Findings and AwardLien ClaimantEmployment Development Department (EDD)Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)Industrial InjuryLumbar SpinePsycheTemporary Disability IndemnityAttorney Fee
References
13
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04717
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2025

Lahoz-Vargas v. Bop Ne, LLC

The plaintiff, Edward Lahoz-Vargas, was injured at a construction site when an aluminum beam fell from a scaffold and struck his right knee. He sued under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, which the Supreme Court denied. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial, ruling that the defendants raised triable issues of fact concerning the plaintiff's credibility as the sole witness to the incident, thus precluding summary judgment.

Construction AccidentScaffold IncidentFalling ObjectLabor LawSummary JudgmentCredibility IssueTriable Issues of FactPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewNondelegable Duty
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 1990

Salvatore D'Amico v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.

Salvatore D'Amico, a window-washer, sued for injuries after falling from a ladder at 4 New York Plaza. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment motions from various parties. This appellate court modified that order, granting partial summary judgment to D'Amico against Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. (building owner) and Cross and Brown Company (managing agent) under Labor Law §240(1), which imposes absolute liability for failing to provide adequate safety devices. The court found that the ladder's cracking established a prima facie case. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for MHT and Cross and Brown's indemnification claims against Allied Maintenance Corp. (D'Amico's employer), stating that Allied's liability for contribution would depend on the jury's apportionment of fault and the negligence of MHT and Cross and Brown.

Ladder AccidentSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityIndemnificationPremises LiabilityLabor Law §240(1)Window Washer InjuryWorker SafetyAppellate ReviewContributory Negligence
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 604 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