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

Black v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware

This negligence action involves plaintiff James Black, a forklift operator, who sustained injuries after falling through a hole in a trailer owned by Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware and leased to Freeman Decorating Company. Consolidated moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the defect. The court first addressed Black's argument for vicarious liability under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, which was rejected because the claim against Freeman was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, thus leaving nothing to impute. The court then examined Black's direct negligence claims against Consolidated, including constructive notice of the hole, negligent inspection, and inadequate lighting in the trailer. The court found Black's evidence insufficient to establish constructive notice, dismissed the negligent inspection claim due to lack of substantiation, and rejected the inadequate lighting claim as not being a substantial cause of the injuries given the forklift's headlights. Consequently, Consolidated's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Negligence actionSummary judgmentTrailer defectHole in floorWorkers' Compensation LawVehicle and Traffic Law § 388Constructive noticeNegligent inspectionInadequate lightingVicarious liability
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Laundries Corp. v. Craft

This case involves Consolidated Laundries Corp., the petitioner, and its former employee, Craft, the respondent. Consolidated sought to enforce a restrictive covenant agreement against Craft, which prohibited him from serving former customers or engaging in the laundry business within his former route for one year after termination. Both parties were subject to collective bargaining agreements with the Amalgamated Laundry Workers Joint Board and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. Consolidated initiated arbitration, which Craft challenged on jurisdictional grounds. The case was subsequently removed to federal court. The court examined whether it had jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act or 28 U.S.C. § 1337. The court concluded that Section 301 did not apply because the dispute concerned uniquely personal rights, an individual could not invoke Section 301, and a motion to stay arbitration was not a suit for contract violation under the act. Furthermore, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337 was denied as the claim did not directly arise under an act regulating commerce like the National Labor Relations Act. Consequently, the motions to remand the proceedings to the New York Supreme Court were granted due to lack of federal jurisdiction.

Labor LawArbitrationRestrictive CovenantEmployment ContractFederal JurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementRemandDistrict Court
References
33
Case No. Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 Consolidated
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.

This case involves appeals concerning the consolidation and venue of two actions arising from a fatal car accident in Broome County. Plaintiff Paul Schiffman, executor of the deceased Helds' estates, and plaintiff Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), the Helds' insurer, initiated separate actions against defendant Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company in Monroe County. Uniroyal moved to consolidate the actions and change venue to Broome County, citing witness inconvenience. The Supreme Court denied Uniroyal's motion regarding venue. The appellate court found special circumstances warranted deviation from the general venue rules, reversing the lower court's decision and setting venue for the consolidated actions in Broome County. An appeal from a motion for reconsideration was dismissed.

Venue ChangeConsolidationProducts LiabilityNegligenceWrongful DeathFatal AccidentWitness InconvenienceAppellate ReviewDiscretionary AbuseBroome County Venue
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00112 [168 AD3d 717]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2019

Moscati v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed a personal injury case involving Michael Moscati, an excavator operator injured on a Consolidated Edison work site. Moscati's excavator slid into a creek while removing timber, leading to claims of common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), citing various Industrial Code provisions. The Supreme Court initially granted Consolidated Edison's motion for summary judgment, dismissing these claims. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, concluding that Consolidated Edison failed to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment. Specifically, Con Ed did not demonstrate a lack of notice regarding dangerous premises conditions or an absence of authority to supervise the work.

Construction accidentLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Industrial Code violationsExcavator accidentSummary judgmentPrima facie caseDangerous premises conditionSupervision and controlAppellate Division
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2015

Schwarz v. Consolidated Edison, Inc.

Plaintiff, an ex-police officer with a 2002 perjury conviction related to the Abner Louima case, was hired by Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (ConEd) in November 2014 as a mechanic. He was terminated approximately two weeks later, with ConEd citing "potential disruption of business operations" and "damage to the Company’s reputation" due to his notoriety. Plaintiff sued ConEd, alleging unlawful employment discrimination based on his criminal conviction history under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law, incorporating Correction Law article 23-A. ConEd moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it terminated him due to business disruption and reputational risk stemming from his notoriety, not the conviction itself. The court granted ConEd's motion to dismiss, ruling that article 23-A protects against discrimination based on actual convictions, not reputation or notoriety, and that vacated convictions are not legally cognizable "convictions" under the law.

Employment DiscriminationCriminal Conviction HistoryPerjury ConvictionWrongful TerminationHuman Rights LawCorrection Law Article 23-AReputational HarmNotorietyVacated ConvictionsMotion to Dismiss
References
24
Case No. ADJ6981750
Regular
Jan 13, 2017

GUMERSINDO DELEON vs. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC.

This case concerns a lien claimant's failure to pay a $100.00 lien activation fee required by Labor Code section 4903.06 by the date of a lien conference. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding the order dismissing the lien, but only if the fee is paid within ten days of this notice. The WCAB's intention is based on a court order allowing lien activation fees to be paid between November 9, 2015, and December 31, 2015, and the lien claimant's assertion of computer problems. If payment is received, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code Section 4903.06ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimWCJDWCAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionNinth CircuitVacating injunction
References
7
Case No. FRE 0218098 FRE 0200339
Regular
Aug 14, 2008

JOSE ACOSTA, ESMERALDA ABRIOL vs. PETERSON FAMILY and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S FACILITY

In **Acosta v. Peterson Family**, the Appeals Board dismissed petitions for reconsideration and removal filed by both the defendants and the lien claimant. This action concerns a consolidated lien proceeding with over 800 dates of service valued at over $7 million, stemming from an order compelling the lien claimant to produce specific medical documentation. In **Jacobson v. Sonoma Developmental Department**, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings at the trial level, indicating the prior decision was not final.

WCABLien ConsolidationItemized BillsOperative NotesOwnership InterestFictitious Name PermitsReconsiderationRemovalPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removal
References
0
Case No. ADJ1035201
Regular
Oct 04, 2016

VICTOR DURAN vs. DONUT INN, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board is considering rescinding an order that dismissed Metro Med Shockwave's lien claim for failure to pay a $\$100$ lien activation fee. The WCJ dismissed the lien because the fee was not paid before the lien conference, citing prior precedent. However, the lien claimant argues they had until December 31, 2015, to pay the fee based on a DWC Newsline article referencing a court order. The Board intends to rescind the dismissal if the fee is paid within ten days, allowing further proceedings on the lien claim.

Labor Code section 4903.06Lien activation feeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMetro Med ShockwaveFigueroa v. B.C Doering Co.Angelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionDWC NewslineReconsiderationRescind order
References
2
Case No. ADJ8580497, ADJ7925443, ADJ8847010
Regular
Sep 12, 2014

Anthony Broussard, Chenequa Phelps, William Ortiz vs. Neighborhood House Association; Zenith Insurance Company, Grossmont Family Medical Group; Zenith Insurance Company, Steigerwald Dougherty, Inc.

The Appeals Board dismissed three petitions for reconsideration filed by a lien claimant, ruling that orders quashing notices to appear are not final orders. The Board consolidated the three cases due to common issues and granted removal on its own motion. A notice of intention to impose sanctions was issued against the lien claimant and its representative for allegedly filing frivolous petitions and causing unnecessary delay. The Board found the lien claimant's interpretation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1987 regarding compelling witness appearances to be without merit and a pattern of bad-faith conduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalConsolidationPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Quashing Notice to AppearCode of Civil Procedure section 1987(b)Claims AdjusterSanctionsLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561
References
5
Case No. ADJ1592932
Regular
Feb 16, 2010

LUIS ANDRADE vs. CARNEVALE'S CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's finding that a limited consolidation order expired was not a final order. The WCAB also denied the lien claimant's Petition for Removal, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was not demonstrated. The lien claimant can still request consolidation at this time. This ruling addresses the procedural status of the lien claimant's request regarding a limited consolidation that had expired.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalstipulated limited consolidationWCJFinal orderInterlocutory orderSubstantive rightIrreparable harmWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 3,749 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