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. 2017 NY Slip Op 00959 [147 AD3d 815]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Gonsalves v. 35 W. 54 Realty Corp.

The plaintiffs, Andrew Gonsalves and Shahazad M. Rasheed, sustained personal injuries at a construction site managed by Geiger Construction Company, Inc. and owned by 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. when a parapet wall collapsed during the lowering of a power washer. They sued 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. and Perimeter Bridge & Scaffold Co. for Labor Law violations. 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. then initiated third-party actions against Geiger Construction for contribution and common-law indemnification. After a jury found Geiger Construction negligent, the Supreme Court denied Geiger Construction's motions for judgment as a matter of law. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed these judgments, concluding that there was no rational basis for the jury to find Geiger Construction negligent, as 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence against them. Consequently, the third-party causes of action against Geiger Construction were dismissed.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawNegligenceContributionIndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewJudgment as a Matter of LawJury Verdict
References
7
Case No. ADJ2154380
Regular
Jul 21, 2010

SPENCER DAVIS vs. CLARK & SULLIVAN, INC., LWP CLAIMS SACRAMENTO, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY SAN FRANCISCO, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY PASADENA

In this case, the defendant sought to disqualify a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) due to their alleged unavailability for deposition within 120 days as required by Administrative Director Rule 35.5(f). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for removal. The WCAB found that Rule 31.5, which allows for replacement panels, does not apply to QME unavailability for deposition. Furthermore, the Board determined the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, especially after rescheduling the deposition themselves.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorDeposition UnavailabilityAdministrative Director RuleMandatory RegulationPrejudice and HarmReplacement PanelWCJ OrderUpper Extremities InjuryPsyche Injury
References
0
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. 2017 NY Slip Op 00956
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Cacanoski v. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC

The plaintiff, Krste Cacanoski, was injured after falling through a skylight during asbestos removal work for 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC. He commenced an action against 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, subsequently initiated a third-party action against Cacanoski's employer, Superior Abatement, Inc., seeking contractual indemnification under a subcontract executed after the accident. The Supreme Court denied both the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law claim and Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order with respect to the plaintiff's motion, granting summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, finding that the absence of necessary protection was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The court affirmed the denial of Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the parties intended the indemnification provision to apply retroactively.

Labor Law § 240(1)Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAsbestos RemovalFall from heightSky-lightContractual IndemnificationRetroactive AgreementWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Appellate Division
References
19
Case No. ADJ10662340
Regular
May 15, 2019

ANDREW DICKSON vs. PARTY CITY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was untimely, filed 35 days after the WCJ's order instead of within the 20-day limit. The petition was also unverified, a defect applicant failed to correct after the WCJ noted it. Furthermore, the petition violated WCAB rules by attaching previously filed documents and using a font size smaller than 12 points. Even if considered on the merits, the WCAB would have denied it, agreeing the original case dismissal for lack of prosecution was proper.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalUntimely FilingUnverified PetitionLack of ProsecutionWCAB RulesAdministrative Law JudgeOrder Denying ObjectionSet Aside Order
References
7
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. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
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
Case No. ADJ10492342
Regular
Apr 27, 2023

JASMINE ORBERG vs. INTER SOURCES, INC., STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior decision, finding applicant Jasmine Orberg was an employee of Inter Sources, Inc. at the time of her injury. The WCAB determined that Orberg's activities in the training program, including interacting with customers and providing status updates, established an employer-employee relationship under the Borello standard. Furthermore, the WCAB ruled that the "going and coming" rule did not bar her claim because the employer provided transportation, which falls under an exception to the rule. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on other issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardInternshipMotor Vehicle AccidentGoing and Coming RuleEmployer-employee relationshipBorello standardIndependent contractorPrima facie caseAgencyProvided transportation
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 14,552 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