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. ADJ6668829, ADJ8586066, ADJ6894986
Regular
Jan 21, 2014

VICTOR FORWARD vs. CREATIVE CONSTRUCTION SOLUTIONS, INC., ACE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision that denied applicant Victor Forward's claims for industrial injuries. The WCAB rescinded the prior findings, finding that the administrative law judge's (WCJ) decision lacked clear explanation regarding the credibility determination of the applicant's testimony. The matter is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to provide further reasoning on the credibility and evidence issues. This action allows the WCAB to better evaluate whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Propria personaPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of Fact and OrderIndustrial InjuryCredibility DeterminationBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and Recommendation
References
4
Case No. ADJ9909898, ADJ9939118, ADJ9953997
Regular
Jan 10, 2017

VICTOR FORWARD vs. CREATIVE CONSTRUCTION SOLUTIONS, INC./ACE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. as administered by ESIS

This case involves a Petition for Removal by Victor Forward concerning multiple workers' compensation claims against Creative Construction Solutions, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, finding that removal is an extraordinary remedy. The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor did they show that reconsideration would be inadequate. Therefore, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and denied the removal request.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequate RemedyWCJ ReportAppeals BoardDeniedCalifornia Workers' Compensation
References
2
Case No. CV-23-1320
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Victor Martinez

Claimant Victor Martinez, a pan boiler operator, tested positive for COVID-19 in December 2020 after interacting with a co-worker and filed a workers' compensation claim. The employer and carrier controverted the claim, arguing it did not arise from employment. The Workers' Compensation Board established the claim, finding Martinez contracted COVID-19 through specific workplace exposure, a decision later affirmed. The Appellate Division upheld the Board's determination, citing substantial evidence, including the claimant's direct contact with an infected co-worker (R.H.) and limited outside exposure. The court emphasized that a compensable accident occurs when COVID-19 is contracted as an unusual hazard in the workplace, and the Board's crediting of claimant's testimony was within its prerogative.

Workers' CompensationCOVID-19 ExposureAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkplace HazardCausal ConnectionSpecific ExposureBoard Determination
References
10
Case No. 534955
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Victor Martinez

Victor Martinez, a construction worker, was injured on November 11, 2020, when his right hand was caught between a cantilever pin and a concrete post. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, including injuries to his neck and back, in addition to his right upper extremity. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially established the claim only for injuries to his right forearm and wrist, disallowing the neck and back claims. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this determination, amending the claim to include the neck and back injuries. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier appealed the Board's decision, arguing against the causal relationship of the neck and back injuries. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and deferring to the Board's assessment of medical witness credibility and its factual findings.

Construction InjuryWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausality DeterminationNeck and Back InjuriesSubstantial EvidenceMedical Opinion CredibilityAppellate ReviewWork AccidentBoard Decision AffirmationOrthopedist Testimony
References
8
Case No. CV-23-0868
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Victor Germano

Claimant, Victor Germano, sustained a right shoulder injury in 2015 and a right arm injury in 2019. He was previously awarded a 27.50% schedule loss of use (SLU) for the 2015 injury. Following the 2019 injury to his right elbow and biceps, his treating physician opined a 33.33% SLU of the right arm, in addition to the prior injury. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a decision allowing the State Insurance Fund to credit prior payments, thereby offsetting the new SLU award. Citing *Matter of Johnson v City of New York*, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, determining that it lacked substantial evidence, as the claimant's physician clearly distinguished the 33.33% SLU from the prior shoulder injury. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Board (WCB)Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Arm InjuryShoulder InjuryBiceps Tendon InjuryMedical Evaluation ReportCredit for Prior PaymentsAppellate Division ReviewSubstantial Evidence StandardMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03852 [161 AD3d 1183]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Munzon v. Victor at Fifth, LLC

Juan P. Munzon, a laborer, was injured during demolition work when he fell from a wooden beam after detaching his safety harness to help a coworker move a heavy metal beam. The metal beam struck the wooden beam, causing Munzon to fall from the fourth to the third floor. Munzon sued Victor at Fifth, LLC, and a general contractor/construction manager, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted summary judgment to Munzon on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. A jury subsequently awarded Munzon damages. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that Munzon established a prima facie case under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to inadequate safety equipment, and found that the jury's awards for past and future pain and suffering and future medical expenses were reasonable and did not materially deviate from reasonable compensation.

Personal InjuryLabor Law ViolationElevated Work SiteSummary JudgmentLiabilityDamages AwardPain and SufferingMedical ExpensesAppellate ReviewConstruction Accident
References
27
Case No. ADJ8414182
Regular
Feb 25, 2014

VICTOR LEDESMA, (VICTOR GOMEZ LEDESMA) vs. GROUP MANUFACTURING SERVICES, HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for a left ankle and foot injury. The defendant sought reconsideration of the decision, arguing the applicant's testimony was less credible, the claim was barred as post-termination, exhibits were improperly admitted, and a defense witness was wrongly excluded. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's report. The judge found the applicant's testimony credible, noting inconsistencies and misrepresentations in the defendant's arguments and witness testimonies. Specifically, the judge determined the termination date was not a bar, the admission of exhibits was proper, and the exclusion of the unlisted rebuttal witness was warranted.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportcredibility findingGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.denial of reconsiderationoccupational injuryleft ankle and footdeburrerdenied claim
References
2
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05446 [152 AD3d 530]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2017

Matter of Transit Workers Union, Local 100 v. New York City Tr. Auth.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Supreme Court judgment that denied the petition of Transit Workers Union, Local 100, and nonparty Victor Martinez to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration award upheld the termination of Victor Martinez's employment as a bus driver by the New York City Transit Authority due to an incident. The court found that the arbitration award was rational, supported by evidence, and did not violate strong public policy or exceed the arbitrator's power. The penalty of termination was also deemed not irrational.

Arbitration AwardEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 75Arbitrator's PowerPublic PolicyBus Driver MisconductRationality Standard
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2005

People v. Jusino

This case details a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) hearing for defendant Victor J., who had pleaded guilty to sexual offenses against a child. The court determined his duration of registration and level of notification under SORA. While the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders initially recommended a Level Three designation, the court ultimately designated him a Level One sex offender. This decision was a downward departure from a presumptive Level Two, influenced by mitigating factors such as his own history as a victim of sexual abuse, his successful rehabilitation efforts, and consistent clinical findings that he is not a pedophile. He is subject to lifetime registration.

Sex Offender Registration ActSORASexually Violent OffenderLifetime RegistrationRisk AssessmentDownward DepartureMitigating CircumstancesYouthful OffenderChild Sexual AbuseRecidivism Risk
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 1999

People v. Victor J.

Defendant Victor J. was charged with child sexual abuse spanning his minority and adulthood, prompting questions about the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and his eligibility for youthful offender treatment. The court found it had jurisdiction over the continuous offenses and considered defendant's history as a child sexual abuse victim as a mitigating circumstance directly related to his conduct. This finding qualified him as an "eligible youth" under CPL 720.10 (3) (i), despite the prosecution's opposition. Exercising its discretion, the court granted youthful offender adjudications for counts committed as an adult and juvenile delinquent adjudications for those committed as a minor. The final decision included withdrawing his sex offender certification and imposing a probationary sentence with mandated therapeutic intervention, prioritizing rehabilitation over adult incarceration.

Child Sexual AbuseYouthful Offender StatusCriminal JurisdictionMitigating CircumstancesJuvenile DelinquencyContinuing OffenseSexual Abuse VictimizationPsychological AssessmentProbationary SentenceSex Offender Registration Act (SORA)
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 164 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