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. ADJ7618189
Regular
Nov 26, 2012

RUBEN OROZCO vs. EXACT STAFF, INC.; TOWER/NSM INSUREX, Administered by YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP

This case involves lien claimants Anderson Chiropractic and Santana Lopez seeking reconsideration of an order disallowing their liens. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration because a crucial exhibit, Exhibit 6, was incomplete in the record. Lien claimants are ordered to file a complete copy of Exhibit 6 within 10 days to allow the Board to properly review the case. This action is necessary for the Board to study the facts and applicable law concerning the disallowed liens.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantsFindings and OrdersDisallowed liensExhibit 6Administrative law judgeWCJSupplemental pleadingSan Francisco
References
0
Case No. 612067/18
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2026

Viana v. All Is. Recycle & Rubbish Removal

This case concerns a wrongful death action brought by Ruth Viana against Bellco Enterprises, Inc., among others, following an accident where her decedent was killed while working on Bellco's premises. The plaintiff alleged Bellco's negligence. Bellco moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked authority to supervise the work and that no dangerous premises condition existed for which it had created or had notice. The Supreme Court granted Bellco's motion, dismissing the complaint against it. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that Bellco established its prima facie case regarding lack of supervision and absence of a dangerous condition, which the plaintiff failed to rebut with a triable issue of fact.

Wrongful DeathNegligencePremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewControl of WorkDangerous ConditionActual NoticeConstructive Notice
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duche v. Star Recycling

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing a wrongful death complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision. The defendants successfully demonstrated through documentary evidence that the decedent was injured during employment with New York Acquisition Sub, Inc., and that Marcilo Correa was a fellow employee. Additionally, Star Recycling, Allied Sanitation, and Resource Company were established as owned by New York Acquisition Sub, Inc. The court found that the plaintiffs could not sue the employer or fellow employee due to immunity under the Workers’ Compensation Law. The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter this immunity, and their request for postponed summary disposition lacked basis.

Wrongful DeathSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ImmunityFellow Employee RuleEmployer LiabilityAppellate AffirmationDocumentary EvidenceKings County Supreme CourtNew York Acquisition Sub Inc.Waste Management of New York
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allocco Recycling, Ltd. v. Doherty

Plaintiff Allocco Recycling, Ltd. subpoenaed non-party Urbitran Associates, Inc. for documents prepared for the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY). Defendant John Doherty, Commissioner of DSNY, moved to quash the subpoena and for a protective order, claiming the documents were irrelevant, unduly burdensome to produce, and protected by deliberative process privilege. Allocco cross-moved to compel production. This memorandum decision specifically addresses the deliberative process privilege claim, finding that the documents, which involve data collection and analysis by a government consultant, are purely factual and do not constitute advisory opinions or policy deliberations. Therefore, the court ruled that the documents are not protected by the deliberative process privilege.

Deliberative Process PrivilegeSubpoenaMotion to QuashProtective OrderMotion to CompelDiscoveryGovernment DocumentsFactual InformationAgency PolicyGovernment Consultant
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2005

Hernandez v. Excel Recycling Corp.

The claimant was injured in August 2003 while working for Excel Recycling Corporation and subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits. During a hearing, the claimant admitted to purchasing a Social Security card to gain employment in the United States. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the case for the claimant's injuries and awarded benefits. The employer, Excel, and its carrier, the State Insurance Fund, appealed the WCLJ's decision to the Workers' Compensation Board, arguing that benefits should be denied due to the claimant's undocumented alien status under the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). The Board denied the application, stating that the IRCA issue was not raised before the WCLJ. The carrier then appealed this denial, but the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider an issue not timely raised at the WCLJ hearing, particularly since the carrier's argument was fact-dependent and its defense could be waived.

Workers' Compensation LawImmigration Reform and Control ActUndocumented WorkersPreemption DoctrineWaiver of DefensesAdministrative ProcedureAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial DiscretionEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sherman v. Babylon Recycling Center, Inc.

The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed a lower court order concerning a construction worker's injury. The plaintiff, Gustav Sherman, was injured by a falling steel beam due to inadequate safety devices. The appellate court ruled that the defendants, Hinck Electrical Contractor, Inc. (general contractor) and Babylon Recycling Center, Inc. (owner), were absolutely liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide safety devices, granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs. The court also denied the defendants' motion to change venue to Suffolk County and granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion to retain venue in New York County, citing the convenience of the plaintiffs' damage witnesses.

Labor LawSection 240(1)Absolute LiabilityFalling Object InjuryConstruction Site SafetyVenue Change DisputeSummary Judgment GrantAppellate ReversalInadequate Safety DevicesProximate Causation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Golten Marine Co. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

The case involves petitioners, neighboring businesses, appealing a judgment concerning construction permits for 20th Century Recycling, Inc. The Supreme Court, Queens County, annulled negative declarations by the DEC and permits issued by the DEC and NYC Department of Health. The appellate court affirmed this annulment, finding that the DEC failed to comply with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Specifically, the DEC omitted crucial environmental concerns like traffic, zoning, and community character in its initial negative declaration, a violation of SEQRA mandates (6 NYCRR 617.11). A subsequent 'amended negative declaration' was deemed insufficient to retroactively validate the invalid environmental review, as SEQRA requires literal compliance.

Environmental LawSEQRAConstruction PermitsNegative DeclarationJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78ZoningTraffic ImpactCommunity CharacterRegulatory Compliance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2001

American Ref-Fuel Co. of Hempstead v. Resource Recycling, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order in a declaratory judgment action. The original plaintiff, American Ref-Fuel Company of Hempstead, sought a declaration that various insurance companies had a duty to defend and indemnify it in an underlying personal injury action. The appeal specifically addresses the denial of motions by Universal Welding & Engineering and the Nelsen Agency (Universal's insurance broker) to dismiss a sixth cross-claim by Home Insurance for legal expenses, and the granting of Home Insurance's cross-motion for summary judgment on that cross-claim. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that Home Insurance, as subrogee of American Ref-Fuel and Resource Recycling, Inc., could recover defense costs from Universal under an indemnification provision in the subcontract. The court distinguished the *Inchaustegui* decision, finding it inapplicable since Home Insurance sought recovery based on contractual indemnification rather than damages for breach of an agreement to procure insurance.

SubrogationIndemnificationDuty to DefendInsurance LawBreach of Agreement to Procure InsuranceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird-Party LiabilityDefense CostsContractual Indemnification
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Essex Insurance v. Pingley

Essex Insurance Company (Essex) initiated a declaratory judgment action to determine its obligation to defend and indemnify Brim Recyclers, Inc., and William Burnett (appellants) in an underlying personal injury lawsuit filed by Roy L. Pingley. Pingley, an independent contractor working at Brim's salvage yard, sustained injuries while repairing a front loader. The Supreme Court granted Essex's motion for summary judgment, concluding that coverage was precluded under the policy's 'Salvage Yard-Auto Yard Endorsement' and 'Employer’s Liability Exclusion Amended'. However, the appellate court reversed this decision. The court found that both exclusionary clauses were ambiguous and, when construed against the insurer, did not apply to Pingley, who was an authorized worker rather than a customer or an employee as defined in the amended exclusion. Consequently, the appellate court denied Essex's motion for summary judgment and granted the appellants' cross-motion. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for the entry of a judgment declaring Essex obligated to defend and indemnify the appellants in the underlying action.

Insurance Coverage DisputeCommercial General Liability PolicySalvage Yard EndorsementEmployer's Liability ExclusionIndependent Contractor StatusSummary Judgment ReversalContract AmbiguityDeclaratory Judgment ActionAppellate Court DecisionPersonal Injury Claim
References
16
Case No. ADJ7857239
Regular
May 27, 2016

DENNIS ARNOLD vs. WASTE MANAGEMENT COLLECTION AND RECYCLING; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, adjusted by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, ADJ7857239, concerning Dennis Arnold vs. Waste Management Collection and Recycling, has been dismissed. The dismissal is due to the petitioner's withdrawal of their Petition for Reconsideration of the April 11, 2016 decision. The Board formally ordered the dismissal based on this withdrawal.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawn PetitionDismissed PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWaste Management Collection and RecyclingACE American InsuranceGallagher Bassett ServicesADJ7857239Oakland District OfficeKatherine Zalewski
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 313 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