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. 2024 NY Slip Op 00275 [223 AD3d 569]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2024

Maurizaca v. 201 Water St., LLC

In this case, third-party defendant Apex Restoration Corp. appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment. The motion was denied by the Supreme Court, New York County, because Apex failed to demonstrate good cause for its delay in filing the motion. Specifically, the court noted that Apex did not require an IME report to meet its prima facie burden under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 and also delayed filing for several months even after obtaining other relevant reports. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing that Apex's arguments on the merits were irrelevant to establishing good cause for the delay. The court reiterated that establishing good cause for filing delays is a prerequisite for such motions.

summary judgment motiondelay in filinggood causecommon-law indemnitycontribution claimsWorkers' Compensation Lawappellate affirmationprima facie burdenprocedural errorcivil procedure rules
References
5
Case No. ADJ2965812 (SAC 0308365)
Regular
Apr 23, 2012

CHRISTINE KRAUSE vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES AGENCY, Legally Uninsured, Adjusted By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded an order compelling the defendant to provide cervical spine surgery, deferring the issue pending a final report from a Spinal Surgery Second Opinion Physician (SSSOP). The SSSOP's report was delayed beyond the statutory 45-day timeframe, but the WCAB found neither party was at fault for this delay, and obtaining the SSSOP's opinion was crucial for a proper decision. The WCAB dismissed the defendant's petition for removal. A dissenting commissioner argued the defendant should be liable for the surgery due to the delayed process, citing precedent that placed the burden on the employer to ensure timely adherence to statutory procedures.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSpinal Surgery Second Opinion PhysicianUtilization ReviewLabor Code Section 4062(b)Industrial InjuryCervical Spine SurgeryTreating PhysicianIndustrial InjuryDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dudas v. Town of Lancaster

The claimant, a laborer, allegedly injured his right ankle on February 28, 2007, after slipping on ice at the employer's Town Hall. Despite ongoing symptoms, the claimant delayed seeking medical treatment and reporting the injury to the employer until June 27, 2007. The employer's workers' compensation carrier initially authorized medical care but later controverted the claim due to conflicting reports regarding the cause of injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim for failure to provide timely notice, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer did not waive the defense of timely notice and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in disallowing the claim given the claimant's delay in reporting and treatment.

Workers' CompensationTimely NoticeAnkle InjurySlip and FallEmployer PrejudiceMedical Treatment DelayClaim DisallowanceBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewWork-Related Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Szwalla v. Time Warner Cable, LLC

The plaintiff, Ms. Szwalla, an account executive, sued her employer, Time Warner Cable, alleging sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII. Her claims stemmed from alleged inappropriate comments and actions by managers Paul Noyd and Cory Karanik, and subsequent reassignments and warnings regarding sales performance. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they exercised reasonable care to prevent harassment and that Ms. Szwalla unreasonably delayed reporting. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that they established the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense against the hostile work environment claim due to their prompt response to reported harassment and Ms. Szwalla's unjustified delay in reporting. Additionally, the court found that none of the alleged retaliatory actions, individually or in aggregate, constituted a materially adverse employment action.

sexual harassmenthostile work environmentretaliationTitle VIIsummary judgmentFaragher/Ellerth defenseadverse employment actionworkplace discriminationemployee disciplinesales performance
References
38
Case No. ADJ7357973
Regular
Apr 18, 2012

Pete Rios vs. Peppertree Distributors, Inc., FirstComp Omaha for Southern Insurance Company

This case concerns Pete Rios' workers' compensation claim, where the Appeals Board denied his petition for reconsideration. The applicant argued that temporary disability benefits should not be terminated based on a narrow interpretation of Labor Code Section 4656(c)(2). However, the Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding that the applicant's injury date of April 24, 2009, falls under LC 4656(c)(2), which limits benefits to 104 weeks within five years from the injury date. The Board noted that jurisdiction remains open for penalties and sanctions regarding delayed temporary disability payments.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPete RiosPeppertree DistributorsInc.FirstComp OmahaSouthern Insurance CompanyOrder Denying ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeTemporary Disability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 1965

Rivera v. Hellman

This case involves a motion to confirm a Special Referee's report concerning the amounts and priorities of various liens. The Special Referee conducted a hearing and reported on claims from an attorney for the plaintiff ($793.50), Roosevelt Hospital ($846.53), and the Millinery Health Fund ($641.00, later adjusted to $528). The report established the amounts of each lien and recommended priorities, placing the attorney's lien first, followed by the hospital lien (except for a $12 outpatient service), and then the compensation lien. The court concurred with the Special Referee's report and recommendations, granting the motion to confirm.

Lien PriorityAttorney's LienHospital LienDisability BenefitsWorkmen's Compensation LawSpecial Referee ReportMotion GrantedNew York Supreme CourtLien LawMotion Practice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colindres v. Carpenito

Plaintiff Rochelle Colindres sought a protective order to deny defendants' demand for a medical report from her former treating psychologist, Diane Henry, or alternatively, relief from compliance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.17(b)(1). Colindres argued that the defendants waived their right to the report as the independent medical examination (IME) already occurred, and that obtaining the report would be an undue hardship since Henry ceased treatment due to Colindres' attendance issues. Defendants Mario Carpenito, Jr., City of White Plains, and White Plains Parking Department opposed, asserting that the report was necessary to clarify alleged injuries, prepare for cross-examination, and facilitate settlement, highlighting Colindres' complex medical history predating the incident. The court denied both branches of Colindres' motion, finding that the rule applies broadly to personal injury actions, defendants did not waive their entitlement, and Colindres failed to prove it was impossible to obtain the report. The court ordered Colindres to exchange a compliant medical report from Diane Henry by March 27, 2017.

protective ordermedical report disclosurediscovery disputepsychological treatmentindependent medical examinationCPLR 310322 NYCRR 202.17waiver of discoveryundue hardshippersonal injury damages
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chaplin v. Pathmark Supermarkets

This case addresses a motion by defendants, including Supermarkets General Corp., for a protective order to vacate the plaintiff Mimi Chaplin's notice for discovery and inspection of accident reports. Mimi Chaplin sought these reports after sustaining personal injuries from a fall at the defendant's premises. The court, presided over by Justice James F. Niehoff, analyzed the newly enacted CPLR 3101 (g), which mandates full disclosure of accident reports prepared in the regular course of business. The court found that the accident report in question was prepared in Supermarkets General Corp.'s regular course of business, rendering it discoverable regardless of its potential use in litigation, thus denying the defendants' motion.

DiscoveryProtective OrderAccident ReportsCPLR 3101(g)Litigation PreparationRegular Course of BusinessPersonal InjuryNegligenceDisclosureEvidence
References
10
Case No. ADJ815944
Regular
Jan 14, 2010

LINDALAIVAREZ vs. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal, upholding the WCJ's decision to deny a new QME panel. The applicant's attempt to obtain a new panel was deemed impermissible "doctor-shopping" by delaying objection to a late supplemental QME report until after receiving and reviewing it, and finding it favorable. The Board applied the principle that parties cannot exploit delays in medical reports for strategic advantage. Therefore, removal was denied as the conduct did not justify a new panel appointment.

Petition for RemovalQME panelmedical-legal reportdoctor-shoppinguntimely reportsupplemental reportobjectionwrit deniedAppeals Board panel decisionadministrative law judge
References
4
Case No. SAL SJO 252436 (MF); SJO 246192
Regular
Jul 02, 2007

NIHAL HORDAGODA vs. State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves an employer's petition for reconsideration of an order authorizing medical treatment and admitting the Qualified Medical Examiner's (QME) reports. The employer argued the QME reports were inadmissible due to an alleged ex parte communication between the applicant and the QME, and that the awarded treatments were improper. The report recommends denying the petition, finding the communication was permissible under LC § 4062.3(h) and that the QME's opinions and awarded treatments for chronic pain were reasonable and not governed by ACOEM guidelines.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 4062.3Ophthalmological evaluationFunctional capacity evaluationUtilization ReviewACOEM GuidelinesChronic spinal conditionTreating physician
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 6,064 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