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. ADJ3162900 (LAO 0866179)
Regular
Aug 23, 2012

ROBERTO GOMEZ vs. GREIF BROTHERS CORPORATION, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case concerns a lien claimant's request for reconsideration of a disallowed lien due to alleged due process violations regarding witness testimony. The Appeals Board initially ordered responses from attorney Hannan and hearing representative Surujnarain regarding these allegations. While Hannan received an extension, Surujnarain's late joinder to the extension request, citing a need for legal counsel due to his non-attorney status, was ultimately granted. Surujnarain now has until September 7, 2012, to file his verified response, with no further extensions to be granted absent a compelling showing of good cause.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings & OrderLien ClaimantDue ProcessWitness TestimonySanctionsPetition for Extension of TimeVerified ResponsePenalty of Perjury
References
0
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 23283
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2023

Jackson v. Citywide Mobile Response Corp.

Tray Jackson, an emergency medical technician (EMT), initiated a class action lawsuit against Citywide Mobile Response Corp., alleging multiple violations of the New York State Labor Law and NYCRR. Jackson claimed that the defendant failed to provide full wages, including overtime and spread of hours pay, and illegally deducted costs for mandatory uniforms and supplies from employee pay, resulting in wages below the minimum wage. The plaintiff sought class certification for a proposed class of approximately 200 current and former EMTs, paramedics, and drivers. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, presided over by Justice Fidel E. Gomez, granted the motion for class certification, finding that all statutory requirements under CPLR 901 and 902 were satisfied. The court certified a class comprising all individuals working for the defendant as drivers, EMTs, or paramedics in New York between December 30, 2015, and August 15, 2022.

Class Action CertificationLabor Law ViolationsUnpaid WagesOvertime PayUniform ReimbursementMinimum WageSpread of Hours PayWage NoticesIllegal Wage DeductionsEMT
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klem v. Special Response Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order regarding the distribution of settlement proceeds and a workers' compensation lien. The plaintiff sustained an ankle injury during employment and subsequently settled a personal injury action against Special Response Corporation. Zurich Insurance Company, the workers' compensation insurer for the plaintiff's employer, had paid over $114,000 in benefits and claimed a lien against the $70,000 settlement proceeds. The Supreme Court initially ruled that Zurich was not entitled to assert a lien. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, affirming Zurich's right to a lien, but remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings to properly calculate the lien amount, taking into account statutory reductions for benefits paid in lieu of first-party benefits and an equitable apportionment of litigation costs, including attorneys' fees.

Workers' CompensationLien RightsSettlement ProceedsPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewInsurance LawEquitable ApportionmentLitigation CostsFirst-Party BenefitsNo-Fault Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Brandle Meadows, LLC

Petitioner, a construction manager, sought to compel respondent to provide a verified statement regarding trust funds for a construction project under Lien Law article 3-A, claiming the initial statement was deficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing referral of the main contractual dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the court ruled that the arbitration did not negate the respondent's obligation to provide a compliant verified statement. The court found respondent's provided statement insufficient across multiple categories required by Lien Law § 75 (3). Consequently, the appeal court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the respondent to furnish a compliant verified statement.

Lien LawVerified StatementConstruction ManagerTrust FundsArbitrationAppellate ReviewStatutory TrustReal Property ImprovementTrust BeneficiaryCompliance Deficiency
References
12
Case No. ADJ11045133 ADJ11046176
Regular
Dec 30, 2019

JOHN QUIROGA vs. AK HVAC, NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of a prior dismissal order. The initial dismissal was based on the lien claimant's failure to verify its August 28, 2019, Petition for Reconsideration. Despite the lien claimant's subsequent attempt to submit a verified response and claim ignorance of the verification requirement, the Board found no legal basis for relief. As the underlying petition was dismissed, the Board did not address the lien claimant's substantive claim for reimbursement.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationVerification defectUnverified petitionDismissalTimelinessMedical-legal evaluationWCABWCJObjection and Response
References
1
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01159
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Matter of American Bridge Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a lower court's decision denying American Bridge Company's (AB) petition to annul a determination by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). AB, a contractor for the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), sought additional compensation for redesigning a protective shield on the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge due to a discrepancy in vertical clearance measurements. However, the contract explicitly required AB to verify all existing dimensions, noting that DOT's figures were approximate. The court concluded that the contract unambiguously placed the responsibility for verifying dimensions on the contractor, and DOT had not made any bad faith misrepresentations, thereby affirming the denial of additional costs.

Contract DisputeConstruction ContractPublic WorksContract InterpretationRisk AllocationField MeasurementsBid DocumentsMisrepresentationAdministrative AppealArticle 78 Proceeding
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2007

Botway v. National Response Corp.

The defendant, Deborah L. Wick, appealed an order denying her motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The plaintiff alleged Wick, her supervisor at National Response Corporation (NRC), caused injuries through an intentional tort, despite receiving worker's compensation benefits. Wick argued the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy, and the intentional tort exception did not apply as she lacked intent to injure. The Supreme Court denied Wick's motion, finding a factual dispute regarding the intentional tort. The appellate court affirmed this denial, concluding that Wick failed to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment by not eliminating the existence of a factual issue concerning whether an intentional tort was committed.

Personal InjuryIntentional TortSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedySupervisor LiabilityAppellate ReviewQuestion of FactPrima Facie EntitlementEmployment Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Trump

Plaintiffs Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC United), Jill Phaneuf, and Eric Goode sued Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President, alleging violations of the Domestic and Foreign Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution due to his continued business interests. Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment and injunctions to prevent further violations and require the release of financial records. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The U.S. District Court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the 'Hospitality Plaintiffs' (ROC United, Phaneuf, and Goode) lacked Article III standing due to a failure to demonstrate competitive injury traceable to Defendant's actions or redressable by the court, and that their claims fell outside the Emoluments Clauses' zone of interests. The court also ruled that CREW lacked standing as its alleged injury of diverted resources was deemed self-inflicted and an 'abstract concern.' Furthermore, the court considered the Foreign Emoluments Clause claims non-justiciable as a political question and not ripe for judicial review, as Congress had not yet asserted its authority.

Emoluments ClauseStandingSubject Matter JurisdictionPolitical Question DoctrineRipeness DoctrineConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersEconomic CompetitionOrganizational StandingPresidential Powers
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2004

United States v. Jaffe

Bernard Jaffe, Jr. pleaded guilty to making false statements to an FDIC-insured bank, defrauding the Bank of New York of $20 million. He was sentenced to 57 months imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $18.1 million in restitution. The District Court denied his motion for a downward departure based on his 43-year-old daughter's alleged dependency, deeming her not uniquely reliant. Despite initial reservations regarding his cooperation, Jaffe received a three-level sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The court established a restitution payment schedule, including a 9% interest rate, and clarified that Florida's homestead and federal ERISA pension exemptions would not shield assets from federal restitution obligations, especially once pension funds are distributed.

Fraudulent StatementsBank FraudSentencing GuidelinesRestitution OrderDownward Departure DenialAcceptance of ResponsibilityERISA BenefitsFlorida Homestead ExemptionFinancial DisclosureVictim Compensation
References
43
Case No. ADJ10125079
Regular
Feb 22, 2017

BIRGIT GALINDO vs. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for removal filed by the defendants, American Medical Response and its insurer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, citing that removal is an extraordinary remedy only granted in cases of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB found that the defendants failed to demonstrate such harm and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse decision is eventually issued. Therefore, the defendants' contentions can be raised with the trial judge.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ AnalysisAdministrative Law JudgeExtraordinary RemedyFinal DecisionTrial Judge
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,160 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