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. 2025 NY Slip Op 06139 [243 AD3d 417]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2025

Pacheco v. Catholic Guardian Servs.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's cause of action alleging nonpayment of wages under Labor Law § 191. The plaintiff, Ingrid Pacheco, failed to state a valid claim under Labor Law § 191 as it pertains to frequency of pay, not unpaid wages, and she did not make any allegations regarding the frequency of pay. Furthermore, Pacheco did not sufficiently allege that she is a clerical worker entitled to § 191 protections, rather than a professional worker excluded from them. Consequently, her related claim under Labor Law § 198, which provides remedies for substantive violations of Labor Law article 6, was also dismissed.

Nonpayment of WagesLabor Law § 191 ClaimFrequency of PayClerical Worker StatusProfessional Worker ExemptionLabor Law § 198 RemediesAmended Complaint DismissalAppellate Division First DepartmentSufficiency of PleadingWage and Hour Disputes
References
7
Case No. ADJ627525 (SFO 0457344)
Regular
Dec 19, 2011

Tarcisio Plaza vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to modify the permanent disability rating and date of injury. The applicant sustained a cumulative trauma injury to his hearing, including bilateral high-frequency hearing loss and tinnitus, while employed as a gardener. The WCAB amended the award to reflect a 16% permanent disability rating, adjusted for age, occupation, and non-industrial causes. Additionally, the WCAB corrected the date of injury to June 2003, based on the applicant's last day of injurious exposure and knowledge of the employment-related cause of his disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardcumulative traumabilateral high-frequency hearing losstinnituspermanent disabilityapportionmentdate of injuryLabor Code section 5412presbycusisaudiogram
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Backus v. Wesley Health Care Center, Inc.

The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the carrier’s application for review of a February 8, 2002 decision, deeming it untimely as it was filed more than two years after the WCLJ’s initial decision. The carrier had argued that the average weekly wage was miscalculated due to a mistaken assumption about salary payment frequency. The Board also denied the carrier's subsequent application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decisions, finding no abuse of discretion given the carrier’s failure to provide an explanation for the significant delay and the absence of new evidence warranting a rehearing.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsApplication TimelinessAverage Weekly WageAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionRehearing DenialReconsideration DenialSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation LawNew York Regulations
References
6
Case No. ADJ6766619 (MF) ADJ6766620
Regular
Feb 28, 2018

MARIA DURAN vs. FOREVER 21 RETAIL, INC., CHUBB GROUP

This case involves Maria Duran's request for home health care services, which was initially denied by utilization review (UR) and upheld by Independent Medical Review (IMR). The applicant argued that her need for assistance with household chores and personal hygiene fell outside the scope of the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) guidelines as applied. While the Board acknowledges that the specific MTUS guideline used in this case was later found to be an invalid regulation in a related case, it affirmed the original decision. This affirmance was based on the finding that the initial request for services was too vague, lacking specific details on the type, frequency, and duration of care, and that a revised request could be made.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria DuranForever 21 RetailInc.Chubb GroupOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationIndependent Medical ReviewIMRUtilization ReviewUR
References
9
Case No. ADJ8920582 (LBO 0029109)
Regular
Oct 10, 2013

DAVID SMITH vs. RMD REBAR, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant's claim for workers' compensation medical treatment, specifically facet blocks and a spinal cord stimulator. The Appeals Board affirmed an arbitrator's July 31, 2012 decision, as amended, finding no unreasonable delay in authorizing this treatment after prior related decisions. The Board also affirmed a June 14, 2013 decision by another arbitrator, which imposed a penalty and awarded attorney's fees for defendant's unreasonable delay in authorizing separate treatment (radio frequency ablation). The Appeals Board emphasized the importance of attorney fees to ensure injured workers have recourse for denied medical treatment, even without a monetary award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationAttorney's FeesMedical TreatmentArbitratorFindings and OrderSan FranciscoSeabright Insurance CompanyRMD RebarDavid Smith
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 1998

Millett v. Millett

The case involves an appeal from a Family Court order that modified a prior custody and visitation arrangement for two sons. Initially, the parents had joint custody, but the petitioner sought to limit the respondent's visitation due to alleged mental abuse of the children. The Family Court awarded sole custody to the petitioner and mandated that the respondent's visitation be arranged by the children's therapist. On appeal, the court affirmed the termination of joint custody and the requirement for supervised visitation. However, it found that delegating the authority to determine the specifics of supervised visitation to a therapist was an improper delegation of judicial power. Consequently, the case was remitted to the Family Court of Warren County for further proceedings to establish the nature and frequency of the supervised contacts between the respondent and the children.

Custody disputeVisitation rightsChild mental healthParental fitnessFamily CourtModification of orderAppellate reviewRemandSupervised visitationDelegation of judicial authority
References
12
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07035 [200 AD3d 1327]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2021

People v. Hansel

The defendant, Raymond A. Hansel, appealed his conviction for predatory sexual assault against a child and three counts of rape in the first degree, and the denial of his CPL 440.10 motion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the County Court erred in allowing the victim's mother to testify regarding the frequency of her sexual relations with the defendant, which was introduced to suggest his sexual desires were being met elsewhere. This error was deemed not harmless as the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming, impacting the jury's credibility assessment. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the matter was remitted for a new trial. The appeal from the CPL 440.10 order was dismissed as academic, and the court also addressed the permissibility of expert testimony on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome for retrial.

Child sexual abusePredatory sexual assaultRape first degreeEvidentiary errorHarmless error doctrineVictim credibilityPostconviction motionWeight of evidence reviewExpert witness testimonyChild Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome
References
24
Case No. 534023
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Brenda Sanchez

Brenda Sanchez, a station agent, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision denying her claim for benefits for repetitive stress injuries to her neck, back, left shoulder, left hip, and left hand. Initially, the claim was disallowed as time-barred, but the Appellate Division remitted the matter. Upon remittal, the WCB found that the injuries were not causally related to her employment, discrediting the opinion of her treating physician, Stephen Roberts. The Appellate Division affirmed the WCB's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Sanchez failed to establish a recognizable link between her injuries and a distinctive feature of her occupation, specifically the lifting of heavy coin bags, due to insufficient evidence regarding frequency and a clear causal mechanism.

Occupational diseaseRepetitive stress injuryCausationMedical evidenceSubstantial evidenceStation agentWorkers' compensation benefitsTime-barred claimBoard decisionAppellate review
References
8
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06459
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2019

Vega v. CM & Assoc. Constr. Mgt., LLC

Plaintiff Irma Vega sued CM and Associates Construction Management, LLC, alleging that she was employed as a manual laborer and was paid biweekly instead of weekly, violating Labor Law § 191 (1) (a). She sought liquidated damages, interest, and attorney's fees pursuant to Labor Law § 198 (1-a). The defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, which was denied by the Supreme Court, Bronx County, was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department. The court clarified that Labor Law § 198 (1-a) provides remedies for untimely payment of wages, encompassing situations where frequency requirements are violated, even if all wages are eventually paid before an action commences. It further affirmed that a private right of action is expressly provided and, in the alternative, implied for violations of Labor Law § 191, thus rejecting the defendant's arguments against such claims.

Wage claimsManual laborerBiweekly paymentWeekly payment requirementLiquidated damagesLabor Law violationsPrivate right of actionUnderpayment definitionTimely wage paymentEmployer obligations
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 21232
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2021

Phillips v. Max Finkelstein, Inc.

Plaintiff Jesse Phillips, a manual employee of Max Finkelstein, Inc., was paid biweekly, violating Labor Law § 191 (1) (a) (i) which mandates weekly payment for manual workers. Phillips sued over late payments and improper wage statements. The Suffolk County Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing both causes of action. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed, citing the precedent in Vega v CM & Assoc. Constr. Mgt., LLC that a private right of action exists under Labor Law § 198 (1-a) for violations of wage frequency requirements. Thus, the court reinstated Phillips' first cause of action concerning late payments but upheld the dismissal of the second cause of action regarding wage statements, as Phillips did receive statements with every payment. The final order modified the lower court's decision, denying the dismissal of the first cause of action.

wage payment frequencymanual employeeLabor Law violationsliquidated damagesprivate right of actionsummary judgmentstare decisisAppellate Division precedentwage statementsemployment law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 14 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