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. ADJ7212870, ADJ7212871
Regular
Jul 08, 2013

VICTOR MEJIA vs. AUTO ZONE, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision concerning Victor Mejia and Auto Zone. The Board rescinded the Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) decision and returned the case for further proceedings. This order is not a final decision on the merits. The WCJ will issue a new decision after further review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVictor MejiaAuto Zone Inc.ADJ7212870ADJ7212871Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeGrant ReconsiderationRescind DecisionFurther Proceedings
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mejia v. Astrue

Pro se plaintiff Joseph Mejia challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying him Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Mejia alleged disability due to heart failure and high blood pressure since October 2007. Administrative Law Judge Robin J. Arzt denied the application on May 28, 2009, finding Mejia's impairments were severe but did not meet listed impairments and that he retained the residual functional capacity for light work. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck reviewed the decision and found it supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, affirming the denial of benefits.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security Income BenefitsCongestive Heart FailureHypertensionCardiomyopathyResidual Functional CapacityALJ Decision ReviewSubstantial Evidence ReviewTreating Physician Rule
References
82
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06863 [188 AD3d 574]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2020

Mejia v. Unique Dev. Holding Corp

Plaintiff Santos Mejia sustained injuries when a load of lumber fell from a pallet during hoisting at a construction site, striking him. The Supreme Court initially granted Mejia partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed claims against defendant Certified Lumber Corporation. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order, reinstating Mejia's common-law negligence claim against Certified and defendant Montrose Park, LLC's cross claims for contribution and indemnification against Certified. The court found triable issues of fact concerning Certified's negligence in securing or unloading the lumber, while affirming the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, noting Mejia's activity was covered under the statute.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceContributionIndemnificationAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyFalling ObjectTriable Issues of FactPremises Liability
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01449 [203 AD3d 815]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2022

Mejia v. 69 Mamaroneck Rd. Corp.

The plaintiff, Roger Mejia, a roofer, sustained personal injuries after falling through an unguarded hole on a roof during construction work. He commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied his motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but granted it for Labor Law § 241 (6). On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order regarding Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court found that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to provide adequate safety devices against an elevation-related risk, which was a proximate cause of Mejia's injuries, and that the plaintiff's conduct was not the sole proximate cause.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentLiabilityElevation-related RiskProximate CauseSafety DevicesConstruction AccidentRooferUncovered OpeningAppellate Division
References
10
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. ADJ7411124
Regular
Jul 03, 2018

Francisco Mejia vs. David Pearson and Linda Pearson dba Dinah's Chicken, Zenith Insurance, State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves applicant Francisco Mejia seeking reconsideration of an approved compromise and release agreement and stipulation for workers' compensation benefits. Mejia claimed he was experiencing stress, pain, and confusion during settlement negotiations, leading him to act illogically. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied his petition, finding that Mejia understood the terms of the settlements based on discussions with the judge and the presence of an information and assistance officer. The Board affirmed that Mejia's petition did not establish good cause to set aside the binding agreements.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseStipulation with Request for AwardQualified Medical Evaluatorpermanent disabilitypsyche claimsgood causemutual mistakeduress
References
7
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
Showing 1-10 of 180 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