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
Jun 18, 2009

Claim of Cuthbert v. Panorama Windows Ltd.

Claimant, a purchasing clerk, sought workers' compensation benefits after being assaulted by a coworker. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, finding the assault originated from work-related differences. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, concluding there was a sufficient nexus between the employment relationship and the assault, despite a history of personal animosity and racial slurs between the individuals. The Board relied on the plant manager's credible testimony, which indicated the claimant's workplace attitude created tension. The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, finding no error in their determination of a work-related nexus for the assault.

AssaultWorkplace InjuryWorkers' CompensationEmployment NexusCoworker DisputeRacial DiscriminationBoard AffirmationAppellate ReviewCredibilityPlant Manager Testimony
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maliqi v. 17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc.

The court addresses motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence related to the plaintiff's immigration status, future lost wages, and medical expenses in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff, an undocumented political asylum seeker named Maliqi, was injured while working. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant for the jury to consider potential economic realities if he is deported, it cannot be used to argue that his status prohibits awards for future lost wages or medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendant is precluded from asserting that the plaintiff was working illegally at the time of the accident. The court also permitted expert testimony from an economist regarding future damages but denied the admission of testimony from the plaintiff's immigration counsel as an expert.

Workplace InjuryUndocumented WorkerPolitical AsylumImmigration StatusLost WagesMedical ExpensesEvidence AdmissibilityMotions in LimineExpert TestimonyEconomic Damages
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Figueroa v. Perfect Shoulder Co.

A claimant, a factory supervisor, was rendered a quadriplegic when his parked car on a public street was struck from behind while he was waiting to open the factory at the employer-mandated time. His application for workers' compensation benefits was approved by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently upheld by the Workers' Compensation Board. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the accident occurred away from the workplace and outside work hours. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the employer's directive to arrive early and wait established a causal nexus between the employment and the injury.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsScope of EmploymentOff-Premises AccidentEmployer MandateWaiting TimePublic StreetQuadriplegic InjuryCausal NexusBoard Decision AppealTimely Arrival
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Seymour v. Rivera Appliances Corp.

The decedent intervened in a workplace argument between coemployees Carmelo Cordero and Irma Rodriguez to assist Rodriguez, leading to a physical altercation. After a second fight outside the premises, Cordero and Rodriguez returned the next day and fatally shot the decedent. The Workmen's Compensation Board found the injury arose from employment, a decision the Appellate Division rejected. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, concluding that the decedent's intervention was work-related, establishing a nexus between the assault and employment. The court also determined that the decedent's pursuit of the coemployees outside and the 24-hour interval before the shooting did not necessarily break the employment relationship, thereby reinstating the board's award.

Assault at workWorkers' CompensationScope of EmploymentInterventionCoemployee disputeAccidental injuryCausationCooling-off periodAppellate reviewBoard findings
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2005

Morales v. D & A Food Service

In this case, an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed the dismissal of a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendant Gamillo M. Santomero, III, a landlord. The plaintiff was injured while performing repairs for defendant D & A Food Service, the tenant, without the landlord's knowledge or consent, in violation of the lease. The court ruled that the landlord, an out-of-possession owner, could not be held liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the absence of a nexus between the owner and the worker. Precedent, including Abbatiello v Lancaster Studio Assoc., was cited to support the finding that an owner must have knowledge or consent of the work to be held liable, as the statute aims to place responsibility on those best able to control the workplace.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Out-of-Possession OwnerLandlord LiabilityLack of KnowledgeConsent to WorkLease ViolationLadder FallNexus RequirementAppellate Affirmation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Duffy v. Taconic Correctional Facility

A correction officer, transferred from Jefferson County to Dutchess County, secured housing 30 miles from his new workplace at an employer-maintained facility. On February 3, 2005, he slipped and fell in the parking lot of this housing facility while on his way to work, injuring his back. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board initially determined that the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, entitling him to benefits. The employer and carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed, ruling that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment, as there was no sufficient nexus between the accident site and the employer's premises, and the claimant was not required to live on-site but did so for convenience. The court also noted that the claimant's assignment was permanent, not temporary business travel, and he did not qualify as an outside employee. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentTraveling to WorkEmployer PremisesHousing AccommodationCorrection OfficerSlip and FallAccidental InjuryPermanent TransferJudicial Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. New York State Department of Labor

In this concurring opinion, Judge Abdus-Salaam argues against the majority's expansion of the workplace exception to the warrant requirement, asserting it infringes upon a government employee's reasonable expectation of privacy under the New York Constitution and the Fourth Amendment. The judge contends that placing a GPS device on a personal car to investigate workplace misconduct, even during work hours, requires a warrant. Citing cases like People v Weaver and United States v Jones, the opinion highlights the highly intrusive nature of GPS surveillance, which can reveal extensive personal information. It distinguishes the search of a personal vehicle from workplace searches permitted under O’Connor v Ortega, emphasizing that a personal car is outside the employer's control and traditional workplace boundaries. The opinion warns that allowing warrantless GPS tracking sets a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to widespread electronic surveillance of government employees based on a mere 'reasonableness' standard without judicial oversight.

GPS trackingWarrant requirementWorkplace exceptionFourth AmendmentNew York ConstitutionGovernment employeesPrivacy rightsWorkplace misconductElectronic surveillancePersonal vehicle search
References
11
Case No. ADJ9242655
Regular
Aug 22, 2014

Michelle Justus vs. Folsom-Cordova Unified School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding treatment outside the Medical Provider Network (MPN). The WCJ correctly granted the applicant's motion to treat outside the MPN because the defendant failed to provide access within the required distance to the applicant's *present* workplace, not just the injury site. The Board affirmed that the term "workplace" in the regulation refers to the employee's current location of regular employment. Therefore, the defendant's argument that they met MPN access standards based on the former workplace was rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMPNPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ8 CCR section 9767.5(b)substantive rightliabilityinjury workplacepresent workplacegeographic location
References
4
Case No. ADJ2901317 (FRE0226671)
Regular
May 02, 2011

Connie Mehia vs. CITY OF FRESNO C/O AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS (AARLA)

The applicant sought workers' compensation benefits for a stroke, claiming it arose out of and in the course of employment due to workplace stress. The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) denied the claim, finding no credible evidence that a workplace incident caused the stroke. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the WCJ's decision, concluding that the applicant failed to prove the crucial element of a work-related precipitating event. Both QMEs opined the stroke could be industrially related, but their opinions relied on the applicant's account of a specific workplace argument that the WCJ found unsubstantiated.

AOE/COEindustrial strokeworkers' compensationreconsiderationcausationpre-existing conditionQualified Medical Examinercredibilitysubstantial evidencework-related stress
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2007

Salvador-Pajaro v. Port Authority

This case involves a Port Authority police officer who sued the Port Authority for personal injuries, alleging an unsafe workplace in New Jersey. The Port Authority's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was initially denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the motion and dismissing the complaint. The court ruled that New York's Labor Law § 27-a, which was the basis for the General Municipal Law § 205-e claim, does not apply to the Port Authority as an Interstate Compact agency, particularly without concurring legislation from New Jersey. Additionally, New York Labor Law provisions concerning workplace safety do not apply to workplaces located outside of New York, even if both the injured worker and the employer are New York domiciliaries.

Interstate Compact AgencyWorkplace SafetyJurisdictionExtraterritorial ApplicationLabor LawGeneral Municipal LawSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryPort AuthorityEmployer-Employee Relations
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,005 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