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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2005

Vera v. Saks & Co.

Angel C. Vera initiated a lawsuit against his former employer, Saks & Company, and his union, United Storeworkers, Local 1102. He contended that Saks unlawfully deducted wages by factoring merchandise refunds into commission calculations, violating New York Labor Law § 193. Additionally, Vera accused the Union of breaching its duty of fair representation under the Labor Management Relations Act for not pursuing arbitration on his behalf. The court ruled that Vera's claim against Saks was arbitrable and required exhaustion of contractual remedies, which he failed to accomplish as the Union legitimately decided not to arbitrate. Vera also conceded his unfair representation claim against the Union. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to both Saks and the Union, dismissing Vera's claims due to failure to exhaust remedies and being time-barred.

Wage DeductionCommissionsCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationDuty of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActExhaustion of RemediesSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsPreemption
References
41
Case No. ADJ10924076
Regular
Aug 28, 2018

PATRICIA VERA vs. BUMBLE BEE FOODS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision denying applicant Patricia Vera's claim. The ALJ had found that Vera did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment and that her claim was barred by the post-termination defense. The WCAB found that the ALJ failed to fully address the exceptions to the post-termination defense under Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10), specifically subsection (D) concerning the date of injury. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine if the post-termination defense applies and, if not, to address the issue of industrial causation.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardBumble Bee FoodsACE American Insurance CompanyESISPatricia VeraOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJpost-termination defenseindustrial causation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2015

Vera v. Low Income Marketing Corp.

The court modified an order regarding a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, partially granting the plaintiff's motion against defendant Low Income Marketing Corp. (LIMC) and denying LIMC's motion to dismiss. It affirmed the lower court's decision that a Workers' Compensation Board finding of no employment relationship was not preclusive due to different statutory definitions of 'employment.' The court found that plaintiff Claudio Vera was 'employed' under the Labor Law, entitling him to partial summary judgment against LIMC, the owner. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment to defendant Skyline Scaffolding Group, Inc., dismissing common-law negligence and cross claims against it, as there was no evidence it created the scaffold defect. The final decision modified the order to grant Skyline's motion and otherwise affirmed it.

Labor LawScaffold AccidentSummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelWorkers' CompensationEmployment DefinitionIndependent ContractorOwner LiabilityGeneral ContractorNegligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2006

Vera v. NYC Partnership Development Fund Co.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, issued an order on May 23, 2006, which was subsequently appealed. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, denying a third-party defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint. Concurrently, the court also denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment regarding liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The decision highlighted unresolved factual issues concerning the employer's identity and whether the plaintiff was a special employee. Furthermore, a significant question of fact remained regarding whether plaintiff Dodanin Vera deliberately chose not to utilize available safety devices, thus precluding summary judgment on the Labor Law claim.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law 240(1)Res JudicataWorkers' Compensation BoardEmployer LiabilitySpecial EmployeeSafety DevicesDeliberate RefusalAppellate DecisionThird-Party Action
References
4
Case No. ADJ4388816 ADJ4391500
Regular
Sep 24, 2013

VERA ORTIZ vs. MERCY MEDICAL CENTER, MERCEDDOMINICAN CAMPUS

This case involves a lien claimant, Dr. Amaral, seeking reconsideration of a decision regarding his medical lien for services rendered to applicant Vera Ortiz for an injury in 1998. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify that the Labor Code §4604.5 visit limitation does not apply to pre-2004 injuries. The Board affirmed the decision that Dr. Amaral did not meet his burden of proof regarding the full lien amount but deferred the issue of penalties and interest to the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMercy Medical CenterMerced Dominican CampusDavid Amaral D.C.Findings of Fact and AwardLabor Code section 4604.5Kunz v. Patterson Floor CoveringStipulated Awardmedical lienprimary treating physician
References
1
Case No. ADJ8853372
Regular
Dec 15, 2014

FRANK SOFER vs. VERA CAMPBELL KDWZ, TOWER GROUP COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was an employee of Vera Campbell and KDWZ. The Board agreed with the Administrative Law Judge's report, which found the applicant's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations due to equitable tolling. This equitable tolling was based on the applicant's timely civil lawsuit against the employer for failing to provide workers' compensation insurance, which alerted the defendant to the potential claim. The Board also noted the defendant presented no evidence to rebut the applicant's medical evidence of injury.

ADJ8853372Petition for ReconsiderationEmployee statusLabor Code 2750.5Statute of limitationsEquitable tollingMedical evidenceEstoppelLachesTraumatic brain injury
References
21
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00588 [158 AD3d 866]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2018

Matter of Jelic (Ama Research Labs. Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Vera Jelic, a laboratory technician, was terminated from AMA Research Laboratories Inc. due to repeated tardiness and absenteeism. She filed for unemployment insurance benefits, which were initially granted by the Department of Labor and affirmed by an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The employer appealed, arguing that Jelic's actions constituted disqualifying misconduct. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that while the employer had cause for termination, Jelic's conduct did not demonstrate a willful and wanton disregard of the employer's interest to rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct. The court noted that disciplinary actions occurred after a work-related injury and that Jelic was not given an opportunity to correct her behavior prior to termination.

Unemployment InsuranceDisqualifying MisconductTardinessAbsenteeismEmployment TerminationWillful and Wanton DisregardSubstantial EvidenceAppellate DivisionLabor LawEmployer Interest
References
6
Case No. ADJ4189587
Regular
Mar 24, 2017

VERA ZAY vs. STUART ANDERSON'S BLACK ANGUS, CHUBB GROUP INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Vera Zay's petition for reconsideration in the case against Stuart Anderson's Black Angus. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report. Additionally, the Board admonished defense counsel for violating page limits, citing non-existent evidence, and raising new issues on reconsideration, warning of potential sanctions.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Director Rule 10205.12(10)Page-limit requirementEvidence not in the recordNew issues on reconsiderationSanctionsLab. Code§ 5813Cal. Code Regs.
References
0
Case No. ADJ10241969
Regular
Jul 11, 2016

VERA VILLALOBOS vs. WALMART STORES, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Vera Villalobos' petition for reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision on substantive rights. The Board clarified that disputes over the need for future medical treatment after release by an MPN physician must be resolved through the Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) process. The Board also admonished applicant's attorney for making misleading statements in the petition regarding prior treatment objections. Consequently, reconsideration was denied as the order was not a final appealable decision and the attorney's misrepresentations were noted.

MPNQMEreconsiderationinterlocutory orderfinal ordersubstantive rightliabilityPetition for ReconsiderationMedical Provider NetworkLabor Code Section 4062
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Julian v. New York City Transit Authority

Vera Julian, a pro se plaintiff, sued the New York City Transit Authority (TA) and the New York City Employees Retirement System (NYCERS) after her employment termination and the denial of disability benefits. Julian sustained a back injury on the job in 1988, leading to a finding of permanent disability. Following bureaucratic errors regarding her termination and disability applications, she filed an Article 78 proceeding in state court, which resulted in a stipulation allowing her to reapply for benefits. However, her subsequent applications were denied. In this federal action, Julian alleged employment discrimination (race, gender, age, marital status, disability) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII, and ADEA, as well as conspiracy, retaliation, and due process violations. The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that Julian failed to exhaust administrative remedies for discrimination claims, that her allegations were conclusory, and that state law provided adequate due process. The court also dismissed her state law claims, suggesting that her remedy lies in state court.

Employment DiscriminationDisability BenefitsTermination of EmploymentRes JudicataDue ProcessCivil Rights ActAge Discrimination in Employment ActRehabilitation ActWorkers' CompensationSocial Security Disability
References
53
Showing 1-10 of 32 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