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

Estupinan v. Cleanerama Drive-In Cleaners, Inc.

The plaintiff, administratrix of Francisco Estupinan's estate, sued Cleanerama Drive-In Cleaners, Inc. and John Bellasario for damages after Bellasario, a fellow employee, assaulted and killed Estupinan. Cleanerama moved to dismiss, arguing the action was barred by the Workmen's Compensation Law, as an award had already been made. The court clarified that the exclusive remedy rule applies unless the employer actively instigated the assault, not merely through respondeat superior. Finding no evidence of Cleanerama's willfulness, the appellate court reversed the order denying dismissal and granted Cleanerama's motion to dismiss the complaint against it.

Employer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAssault in EmploymentRespondeat SuperiorIntentional Tort ExceptionMotion to DismissAppellate Court DecisionScope of EmploymentEmployer NegligenceWillful Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williamson v. 16 West 57th Street Co.

Bernard Williamson, a window cleaner employed by Audobon Window Cleaning, Inc., sustained grave injuries after falling from a ledge while cleaning windows at premises owned by 16 West 57th Street Co. and leased by Mother Works, Inc. Williamson, through his guardian, sued the owner and lessee alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 202, and 240. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240 liability. The defendants appealed, contending Labor Law § 240 was inapplicable to window cleaners and preempted by Labor Law § 202. The appellate court affirmed that Labor Law § 240 applies to professional window cleaners and is not preempted by Labor Law § 202, but granted summary judgment to the appellants dismissing the Labor Law § 202 cause of action due to a lack of demonstrated violation.

Window Cleaner InjuryFall AccidentLabor Law ApplicationStatutory PreemptionBuilding Owner LiabilityLessee LiabilitySummary Judgment RulingWorkplace SafetyElevation-Related RiskNew York Appellate Court
References
23
Case No. ADJ7489160
Regular
Oct 12, 2015

IRMA CERON vs. NICE CLEANERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Irma Ceron's Petition for Removal against Nice Cleaners. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the applicant failed to demonstrate. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding that reconsideration after a final decision would be an adequate remedy. The applicant's request for further discovery after the Mandatory Settlement Conference, when discovery was closed, was also a factor in the denial.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationinterlocutory orderDeclaration of ReadinessMandatory Settlement Conferencediscovery closure
References
2
Case No. ADJ7479135
Regular
Dec 21, 2015

JESSICA ADAMS vs. AEROSOLES, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The applicant, Jessica Adams, filed a workers' compensation claim against Aerosoles and Liberty Mutual Insurance. The defendant sought removal of two orders: one deferring the admissibility of a deposition and another requiring the claims adjuster to appear at trial. However, the parties subsequently entered into stipulations resolving these issues and agreed to take the matter off calendar. Consequently, the Petition for Removal has been rendered moot and is dismissed.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJStipulation Award and OrderOff CalendarMootDismissedAdmissibility of DepositionMandatory Settlement ConferenceClaims Adjuster
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dennis v. White Way Cleaners, L.P.

Doris Faye Dennis, a supervisory employee, sued White Way Cleaners for gender discrimination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act after her termination, alleging she was replaced by a man. The employer contended her dismissal was part of a downsizing and reorganization. The trial court granted summary judgment to White Way, ruling Ms. Dennis failed to demonstrate she was replaced. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that Ms. Dennis had raised a genuine issue of material fact. The court noted that a male employee assumed all of Ms. Dennis's former duties, plus one additional task, for a lower salary, and questioned the employer's inconsistent rationale regarding employee retention and salary reductions.

Gender DiscriminationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentTennessee Human Rights ActPrima Facie CasePretextWorkforce ReductionEmployee ReplacementEmployment LawAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. a & N Cleaners & Launderers, Inc.

The United States filed a complaint under CERCLA against A & N Cleaners & Launderers, Inc., and Marine Midland Bank, N.A., for costs incurred to clean up toxic chemicals. Marine Midland Bank, N.A. subsequently filed a third-party claim against its insurers, including Utica Mutual Insurance Company, seeking indemnification. Utica moved to dismiss this third-party claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing the Finley v. United States decision. The court, presided over by Judge Sweet, denied Utica's motion, finding that the claim fell within the court’s pendent party jurisdiction. The decision concluded that CERCLA's jurisdictional grant does not implicitly negate pendent party jurisdiction and that discretionary factors favored hearing all claims together for judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Pendent Party JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionCERCLAThird-Party ClaimIndemnificationInsurance LawFederal JurisdictionDistrict CourtRule 12(b)(1) MotionCivil Procedure
References
19
Case No. ADJ3462597 (MON 0287034)
Regular
Jan 18, 2011

JOSE G. HERNANDEZ vs. PARK CLEANERS, HIGHLANDS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed and denied defendant Park Cleaners' Petition for Removal. The defendant sought to have a different administrative law judge (WCJ) assigned to the case. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's recommendation, finding the petition untimely and unverified. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate the significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for removal.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJUntimely PetitionUnverified PetitionSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmPetition for DisqualificationLabor Code Section 5310Declaration of Readiness
References
0
Case No. ADJ7138792
Regular
Feb 28, 2011

HILDA BONILLA vs. CAMEO CLEANERS, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to reverse a prior finding of industrial psychiatric injury. The WCAB found the applicant's psychiatric injury claim barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d) because she was employed for less than six months. The Board determined the incident, where an ironing press lowered on the applicant's hand, was not a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition" as required to overcome the six-month rule. This conclusion was based on evidence that burns at a dry cleaner are common and that the machine operated with a single button, increasing the risk of such an injury.

Labor Code 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary eventsix-month employment ruledry cleanerindustrial injuryreconsiderationWCJAppeals Boardoccupational burn
References
0
Case No. ADJ8641564
Regular
Aug 01, 2013

JORGE AGUILAR vs. IGNACIO TRANCOSO dba SLOAN'S DRY CLEANERS, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant, Jorge Aguilar, who sustained an industrial injury. The defendant, Sloan's Dry Cleaners and Argonaut Insurance Company, sought reconsideration, arguing the applicant was an independent contractor and not injured during employment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding the applicant was an employee based on the employer's right to control. The Board also affirmed the finding that the injury date was after termination, as the applicant credibly testified he only discovered the industrial relation after seeking medical treatment post-termination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAffirmative DefenseLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Independent ContractorIndustrial InjuryEmployee StatusRight to ControlPrima Facie CaseBurden of ProofBorello factors
References
7
Case No. ADJ7026523; ADJ7026470
Regular
Oct 26, 2011

Nancy Parker vs. FOLSOM ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY, HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Nancy Parker's claims of work-related heart injury stemming from exposure to an aerosol cleaner and emotional distress from a co-worker. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the WCJ's findings. The WCJ found that the alleged exposure to the cleaning product likely occurred weeks before the claimed injury date, and the applicant's description of her interaction with the co-worker was significantly inaccurate. Consequently, the WCJ concluded the applicant did not sustain industrial injuries as alleged.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Folsom OrthopedicsHartford Fire Insurance CompanyADJ7026523ADJ7026470cumulative traumaSprayway
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 72 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