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
Aug 10, 2009

Rosario v. Montalvo & Son Auto Repair Center, Ltd.

This case involves an appeal by the defendant, Montalvo & Son Auto Repair Center, Ltd., from an order that granted the plaintiff's motion to confirm a referee's report and partially granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The referee's report found that the plaintiff was injured while employed by the defendant on April 24, 2007, during the course of such employment. The appellate court reversed the order, holding that questions of fact regarding the plaintiff's employment status and injury in the course of employment should have been referred to the Workers' Compensation Board, as it has primary jurisdiction over such determinations. Additionally, the court found that the Supreme Court misapplied the doctrine of inconsistent positions or judicial estoppel because there was no prior legal proceeding where the defendant had successfully argued the plaintiff was its employee. The matter was remitted for a new determination of the plaintiff's cross-motion after resolution by the Workers' Compensation Board.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjuryEmployment LawJudicial EstoppelPrimary JurisdictionAppellate PracticeSummary JudgmentReferee's ReportKings CountyCourt Procedure
References
7
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. ADJ10806223
Regular
Sep 17, 2019

ISRAEL RAMOS vs. THE CRÈME SHOP, INC., EMPLOYERS PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision. The ALJ found the applicant's testimony regarding an industrial injury in 2015 to be not credible due to significant inconsistencies. These inconsistencies were contradicted by medical reports from subsequent treatment and the applicant's own statements to physicians. Additionally, the Board affirmed that the Statute of Limitations barred the claim, as there was insufficient evidence of timely reporting or provision of medical treatment by the employer.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilityunrebutted testimonyStatute of Limitationsmedical reportingcontemporaneous evidenceapplicant testimonycredibility determinationemployer awareness
References
8
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. Docket Entry No. 102
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2011

Beautybank, Inc. v. Harvey Prince LLP

Plaintiff BeautyBank Inc. sought to hold Kumar Ramani in contempt for breaching a permanent injunction issued on October 12, 2010, against Harvey Prince LLP. BeautyBank alleged that Ramani, as a principal of Harvey Prince LLP, continued to sell infringing products. Ramani argued that Harvey Prince LLP did not legally exist and therefore he could not be held in contempt. The court found that BeautyBank failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of Harvey Prince LLP's existence as a legal entity. Furthermore, the court determined that judicial estoppel should not apply because BeautyBank did not suffer unfair detriment, and Ramani did not gain an unfair advantage from his prior inconsistent statements to the USPTO. Consequently, the motion for contempt was denied as Ramani could not be subject to an injunction against a non-existent entity.

Trademark InfringementContempt MotionPermanent InjunctionDefault JudgmentJudicial EstoppelNon-Existent EntityUSPTO FilingsNevada LawIntellectual PropertyEAU FLIRT
References
16
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
Case No. ADJ7352906
Regular
Jul 10, 2012

ANA PEREZ vs. PALOMINO JANITORIAL SERVICES, ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, FIRST COMP INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a "take nothing" finding, upholding the WCJ's decision that applicant Ana Perez failed to prove an industrial injury. The WCJ found applicant's testimony not credible due to inconsistent reporting of the injury date, mechanism, and prior medical history. The medical evidence, including a PQME report, concluded no reasonable evidence of an industrial injury existed, citing inconsistent history and denial of trauma in contemporaneous medical records. Therefore, applicant did not meet her burden of proof to establish an industrial injury.

ReconsiderationWCABWCJcredibility determinationamended claimmechanism of injuryinconsistent historyGarden Grove Hospitaldenies traumafibromyalgia
References
1
Case No. ADJ10303873
Regular
Jan 13, 2020

Alfred Hunt vs. CEMEX; NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY C/O GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior finding that applicant sustained a low back injury while employed as a cement truck driver. Despite applicant's delay in reporting the injury and prior inconsistent statements regarding previous industrial injuries, the Board found his trial testimony credible. The Board relied on the administrative law judge's credibility determination, supported by the QME report, to conclude that the applicant met his burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment. A dissenting commissioner argued that inconsistencies and prior claims warranted rejection of the applicant's credibility.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderIndustrial InjuryCement Truck DriverCredibilityTimely ReportingBurden of ProofAOE/COEPreexisting Condition
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2013

Chiari v. New York Racing Ass'n

Plaintiff Luis Alberto Chiari filed an action against the New York Racing Association (NYRA) and Local Union 3, I.B.E.W., alleging violations of COBRA, ADA, and LMRA stemming from his employment termination. Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson issued a Report and Recommendation, advising that the defendants' motions for summary judgment be granted and all of the plaintiff's claims be dismissed. District Judge Feuerstein reviewed the plaintiff's objections to this report. Finding the objections to be either reiterations of prior arguments or insufficiently specific, and discerning no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's findings, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, thereby granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing all of Chiari's claims with prejudice.

Employment LawDiscriminationSummary JudgmentCOBRA ViolationsADA ClaimsLMRA ClaimsBreach of Collective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationPro Se PlaintiffTermination
References
81
Showing 1-10 of 5,403 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