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
Mar 24, 1989

Marroquin v. American Trading Transportation Co.

Plaintiff Edmundo S. Marroquin was injured on November 8, 1985, while cleaning a cargo tank aboard the S.S. Washington Trader on the high seas. Marroquin was employed by third-party defendant Stevens Technical Services and the vessel was owned by defendant and third-party plaintiff American Trading Transportation Company. Marroquin initially sued American Trading for negligence and later added a cause of action for unseaworthiness. American Trading then instituted a third-party action for contribution and indemnification against Stevens. Stevens moved for summary judgment, arguing that Marroquin's unseaworthiness claim was barred by the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), which would also dismiss American Trading's third-party action. The court denied Stevens' motion, finding that Marroquin was not covered by the LHWCA because he was the equivalent of a 'member of a crew' working on the high seas, not a land-based worker in port. Additionally, the LHWCA's geographical scope does not extend to injuries on the high seas during a long international voyage. Therefore, Marroquin could maintain his unseaworthiness claim, and American Trading could seek contribution or indemnification from Stevens.

Maritime LawUnseaworthiness ClaimLHWCA InapplicabilityHigh Seas InjurySeaman StatusThird-Party ActionSummary Judgment MotionVessel Cleaning CrewContribution and Indemnification
References
17
Case No. ADJ1801165 (VNO 0533524)
Regular
Apr 30, 2010

WILFREDO MARROQUIN vs. THE KROGER COMPANY dba RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY/FOOD 4 LESS, PERMISSED BY SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves an employee, Wilfredo Marroquin, who sustained industrial injuries to his neck, shoulders, and elbows. The primary dispute concerns the employer's claim for credit for temporary disability payments, which significantly exceeded the permanent disability award. The Administrative Law Judge initially denied the credit, citing equity concerns due to the large sum relative to the award and the employer's proper benefit payments. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, recognizing the discretion to allow credit but emphasizing that denial is appropriate if it undermines the purpose of permanent disability benefits. The case is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to assess the equities of both parties regarding partial credit.

Wilfredo MarroquinThe Kroger CompanyRalphs Grocery CompanySedgwick Claims Management ServicesADJ1801165VNO 0533524Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardindustrial injuryjanitor
References
7
Case No. CV-23-1272
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Wilfredo Gonzalez

Claimant Wilfredo Gonzalez sought workers' compensation benefits after a work injury. His counsel was initially awarded a fee, but later requested an additional $480 in counsel fees from late payment penalties assessed against the carrier. The Workers' Compensation Board denied this request, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 24. On appeal, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The Court reasoned that Workers' Compensation Law § 24, even after its 2023 amendment, does not provide for counsel fees to be paid from penalties imposed under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 or otherwise, as the Legislature did not include such a provision in the fee schedule.

Counsel FeesLate Payment PenaltyStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewFee ApplicationPenalty FundsLegislative IntentBoard RegulationsWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
4
Case No. 535327
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Wilfredo Soler

Wilfredo Soler appealed a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision denying his request for full Board review. Soler's claim for work-related injuries was established, and he was initially denied authorization for lumbar fusion surgery by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ). Although the Chair of the WCB later granted the request, this order was subsequently rescinded because the WCLJ had already denied the same request based on identical medical evidence. The WCB denied Soler's application for review, asserting that a Chair's order falls outside its scope of review under Workers' Compensation Law § 23. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Chair's orders are not subject to Board review.

Workers' CompensationAppealBoard ReviewMedical AuthorizationLumbar Fusion SurgeryRescission OrderScope of ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawJudicial ReviewAppellate Division
References
3
Case No. 535062
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Wilfredo Guevara

Claimant Wilfredo A. Guevara sustained injuries in August 2019 and filed a workers' compensation claim against Greenvelvet Tree, Inc. The State Insurance Fund (SIF) attempted to cancel the insurance policy for Greenvelvet Tree, effective July 31, 2019, due to nonpayment. The Workers' Compensation Board found that SIF failed to strictly comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5) notice requirements for policy cancellation, specifically regarding separate service to Greenvelvet Tree. Despite shared addresses and common ownership with another insured entity, the Board concluded that SIF remained the carrier responsible for the claim. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that strict compliance with the statute is mandatory and not satisfied by mere commonalities without explicit authorization for notice.

Workers' Compensation InsurancePolicy CancellationNotice RequirementsStrict ComplianceEmployer LiabilityInsurer ResponsibilityNonpayment of PremiumsShared Corporate AddressCorporate EntitiesAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 1986

Soto v. City of New York

Wilfredo Soto, an epileptic, participated in the Public Works Program in conjunction with the New York City Department of Social Services, working for the Department of Transportation. In May 1979, he suffered a seizure on a work bus, fell out, and sustained a fractured spine, rendering him paraplegic. Soto appealed a judgment, claiming errors in jury instructions regarding comparative fault, where he was found 70% at fault and the City of New York 30%. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the jury instructions on comparative fault were proper and Soto's remaining contentions were without merit. The City of New York's cross-appeal for dismissal of Soto's cause of action was also denied.

Personal InjuryComparative FaultJury InstructionsParaplegiaEpilepsyPublic Works ProgramNegligenceAppellate ReviewKings CountyNew York City
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Torres v. City of New York

Wilfredo Torres, a former New York City Department of Corrections (DOC) officer, filed a complaint against the City of New York and several DOC officials. Torres alleged that DOC’s sick leave policy was unconstitutional and asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, along with state law claims for medical malpractice, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring and retention. After the court initially dismissed some claims, Torres later dismissed all federal claims except for equal protection and requested remand of state claims. The court, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, dismissed Torres’s Equal Protection Claim with prejudice and the remaining state law claims without prejudice.

Corrections OfficerSick Leave PolicyConstitutional Law42 U.S.C. § 1983First AmendmentFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentEqual ProtectionMedical MalpracticeIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyes v. Krasdale Foods, Inc.

Wilfredo Reyes, a former IT technician for Krasdale Foods, Inc., sued his employer and its HR Director, Bernard Patton, for disability discrimination and retaliation under the ADA and NYSHRL. Reyes, a Type 1 diabetic, requested a 30-minute shift adjustment to manage his insulin schedule, which defendants denied, citing disruption to IT coverage. Despite providing a doctor's note that merely requested 'accommodat[ing] his working hours' (later clarified by the doctor to mean time off for appointments, not a schedule change), Krasdale deemed the medical evidence insufficient to support the requested shift modification. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ADA claims, finding Reyes failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination due to insufficient medical evidence for his requested accommodation and lacked a causal connection for his retaliation claim as the denial predated his EEOC filing. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining NYSHRL claims.

Disability DiscriminationADANYSHRLRetaliationReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentType 1 DiabetesEmployment LawShift ScheduleMedical Documentation
References
26
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02158 [215 AD3d 1205]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

Matter of Soler v. Donato, Inc.

The claimant, Wilfredo Soler, suffered work-related back and hip injuries in August 2017. Following a denial by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge in August 2021 for lumbar fusion surgery, the Chair of the Workers' Compensation Board initially authorized the surgery in November 2021. However, this authorization was subsequently rescinded by the Chair due to the prior denial on identical medical evidence. The Workers' Compensation Board then denied Soler's application for review of the Chair's rescission, deeming it outside its scope of review. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that orders of the Chair are not subject to review by the Board under Workers' Compensation Law § 23.

Lumbar fusion surgeryAuthorization for treatmentRescission of orderBoard reviewAppellate DivisionScope of reviewTreating physicianEmployerInsurance carrierMedical evidence
References
3
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02518 [182 AD3d 964]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Matter of Turcios v. NBI Green, LLC

Claimant Wilfredo Turcios sustained injuries after slipping and falling while working for NBI Green, LLC. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim and awarded indemnity benefits. The employer's subsequent application for review by the Workers' Compensation Board was denied because it was incomplete and failed to comply with Board regulations, specifically 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board acted within its discretionary authority by denying the application due to the employer's failure to completely fill out the required form and provide substantive information.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative ReviewBoard RegulationsApplication DenialProcedural ComplianceForm RB-89Appellate DivisionThird DepartmentIndemnity BenefitsSlip and Fall Injury
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 17 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