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

New York Typographical Union No. 6 v. AA Job Printing

The case concerns a petition by New York Typographical Union No. 6 to confirm arbitration awards against employers AA Job Printing Corp. and The Jewish Press, Inc., for violations of a collective bargaining agreement. The employers cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the petition, arguing the awards were not final and that a pending National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) matter preempted the action. The court noted the employers' procedural defaults but favored a decision on the merits. District Judge ROBERT L. CARTER ruled that the arbitration awards were final and definite, and the federal court's jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act was independent of the NLRB's jurisdiction. The court also dismissed the employers' unsupported claim of sexual discrimination. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Union, confirming the arbitration awards, and denied the employers' cross-motion.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActSection 301 LMRASummary JudgmentFederal Court JurisdictionNLRB PreemptionDefault JudgmentProcedural RulesEmployer-Union Dispute
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04297 [230 AD3d 721]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2024

6 Harbor Park Dr., LLC v. Town of N. Hempstead

The plaintiff, 6 Harbor Park Drive, LLC, appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which dismissed its complaint against defendant Angeles Portela following a jury verdict. The action stemmed from property damage caused by water and debris flowing onto the plaintiff's property. Earlier stages of the litigation saw several other defendants, including the Town of North Hempstead, granted summary judgment, leaving only a specific claim regarding mulch placement against Portela for trial. The plaintiff alleged Portela's negligent mulch application increased run-off, but the jury found Portela not negligent. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, concluding that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in evidentiary rulings and that any other errors were harmless.

Property DamageNegligenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulingsSummary JudgmentWater Run-offMulch ApplicationHarmless ErrorJudicial Discretion
References
8
Case No. ADJ7516108
Regular
Jun 06, 2011

ANGELICA CROTTE vs. UFO, INC., ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Virginia Surety's petition for removal because it was unverified, violating WCAB Rule 10843(b). The WCAB also noted the petition's excessive length and improper attachments, which violated multiple rules, including CA Rule 10232(a)(10) and WCAB Rule 10842(c). Based on these egregious violations, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to impose a $500 sanction on Virginia Surety's counsel, Sophia E. Martinez, pursuant to Labor Code section 5813.

Petition for RemovalUnverified PetitionWCAB RulesLabor Code 5813SanctionsFrivolousWillful Failure to ComplyWCJAdministrative Law JudgeVirginia Surety Company
References
1
Case No. ADJ3852069 (STK 0175466)
Regular
Dec 29, 2015

RAFAEL GOMEZ vs. DAVID REICH CONSTRUCTION, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, finding that the Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination was untimely. The WCAB rescinded the previous ruling and entered a new finding that the IMR was not completed within the mandatory timeframes outlined in Labor Code section 4610.6(d). Consequently, the medical treatment dispute is no longer subject to the IMR process and is returned to the trial level for a WCJ to decide. This ruling prioritizes the applicant's right to timely medical treatment, emphasizing that mandatory timeframes are crucial for protecting injured workers.

IMRLabor Code section 4610.6(d)WCAB jurisdictiontimely completionmedical treatment disputeadministrative law judgepetition for reconsiderationfindings of factutilization reviewMaximus
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

CARTIER, DIV. OF RICHEMONT v. Bertone Group

In a trademark infringement case, defendants moved to disqualify plaintiffs' litigation counsel, Tal Benschar, Esq., from serving as a 30(b)(6) deposition witness, citing New York Disciplinary Rule 5-102 which addresses the advocate-witness rule. The Court denied the defendants' motion, allowing Mr. Benschar to testify. The Court acknowledged the potential for confusion and conflicting loyalties when a lawyer acts as both a witness and an advocate, but found these dangers less likely in the pre-trial context. It also considered that Mr. Benschar was in the best position to provide the requested information, having supervised the investigation. However, the Court deferred its ruling on whether Mr. Benschar’s testimony would disqualify him from subsequently serving as trial counsel, noting that another attorney would be primary trial counsel.

Trademark InfringementDiscoveryFed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6)Attorney DisqualificationAdvocate-Witness RuleEthical RulesDeposition TestimonyPre-Trial ProcedureNew York LawCounsel Representation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Messina v. City of New York

Plaintiff Thomas Messina, an electrician, sustained leg injuries after stepping into an unguarded drainpipe hole while working at Yankee Stadium. He and his spouse filed a lawsuit against the City of New York and the New York Yankees, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). Initially, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim but later reversed its decision upon reargument, deeming the nature of the drainpipe hole a factual question for the jury. However, the appellate court reversed this ruling, clarifying that the interpretation of an Industrial Code regulation is a matter of law. The court concluded that the drainpipe hole, approximately 12 inches in diameter and 7-10 inches deep, did not constitute a "hazardous opening" under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b), thereby entitling the defendants to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Construction site accidentDrainpipe holeHazardous openingSummary judgmentLabor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1)Falling hazardsAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationQuestion of law vs. fact
References
10
Case No. ADJ7119489
Regular
Mar 11, 2011

TERESA PEREZ vs. ACCORD LODGING NORTH AMERICA/ MOTEL 6, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns applicant Teresa Perez's claim for industrial injury to her neck, shoulder, arm, hand, and wrist. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the applicant's request for removal regarding the validity of Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panels. The WCAB affirmed the findings of the administrative law judge (ALJ) that panel #1160421 is valid, finding the defendant's initial request for a panel premature. The WCAB also ruled that a prior QME selection in a different case did not mandate its use here.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationFindings and OrdersQualified Medical EvaluatorAgreed Medical EvaluatorLabor Code section 4062.2(b)Code of Civil Procedure section 1013WCAB Rule 10507Service by mail
References
1
Case No. ADJ2065496 (LAO 0777249) ADJ4050189 (LAO 0774705)
Regular
Jan 21, 2010

MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY/FOOD 4 LESS, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

In this case, the defendant appealed a Rehabilitation Unit Determination, but their appeal was deemed untimely and improper by the WCJ. The defendant argued that filing a Declaration of Readiness (DOR) with their petition was not required and that the governing WCAB Rule was invalid. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that the defendant's appeal was indeed untimely and improper under the then-current WCAB Rule 10955, which mandated the filing of a DOR for such appeals. The Board also upheld the validity of WCAB Rule 10955, confirming the Board's authority to establish procedural rules.

Rehabilitation UnitDeclaration of ReadinessWCAB Rule 10955Labor Code section 4645Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factuntimely appealadministrative law judgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRalphs Grocery Company
References
1
Case No. ADJ6502775, ADJ6498620, ADJ8109003, ADJ8115890
Regular
May 09, 2014

MARIA POHYAR vs. DEY LP, AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the challenged order was not a "final order" subject to reconsideration. The WCAB also denied the Petition for Removal, agreeing with the Administrative Law Judge that the issue of whether the defendant Zurich is entitled to a new Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel was only before the WCJ based on a procedural rule regarding appointment notification forms, not ex parte communications. The WCAB clarified that issues of ex parte communications and the applicability of related statutes and rules were not yet properly before the Board. Therefore, the applicant's request for the WCAB to assert jurisdiction and rule against Zurich on the QME panel issue was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalJurisdictionQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Panel QMEDivision of Workers' Compensation (DWC) RulesLabor Code section 4062.3Ex parte communicationMedical Director
References
7
Case No. ADJ7628890
Regular
Jan 03, 2020

ELIZA ARRIAGA vs. CALIFORNIA TRUCK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by Eliza Arriaga, who sought to overturn a dismissal of her workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, upholding the dismissal based on WCAB Rule 10582 for lack of prosecution. The Board found the applicant's attorney's arguments misplaced and confirmed the dismissal was appropriate under Rule 10582, not the rule cited by the applicant. The WCAB adopted the administrative law judge's report in its entirety.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportWCAB Rule 10582dismissallack of prosecutionnotice of intention to dismissRoth v Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.WCAB Rule 10562failure to appear
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 12,027 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