CompFox AI Summary
Plaintiff, an employee of Reicon/Reinauer, was injured while working on a barge by falling into an uncovered hole. He received federal workers’ compensation benefits under the LHWCA. In this action, plaintiff alleged both state Labor Law and federal LHWCA violations. The Supreme Court denied appellants' cross-motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. It also granted Reinauer and Reicon's motion to dismiss appellants' contribution cross-claims. The appellate court modified the order to reinstate appellants' contribution cross-claims against Reinauer and Reicon, finding a triable issue of fact regarding their negligence as vessel owners. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for appellants on plaintiff's claims and the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and found that material issues of fact exist regarding the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Con Edison. The LHWCA does not preempt the Labor Law claims against Con Edison and D'Onofrio, and third-party claims for contribution from an employer/vessel owner are not foreclosed under the LHWCA if based on negligence in the vessel-owner capacity.
Olsen v. James Miller Marine Service, Inc. is a workers' compensation case decided in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Plaintiff, an employee of Reicon/Reinauer, was injured while working on a barge by falling into an uncovered hole. He received federal workers’ compensation benefits under the LHWCA. In this action, plaintiff alleged both state Labor Law and federal LHWCA violations. The Supreme Court denied appellants' cross-motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. It also granted Reinauer and Reicon's motion to dismiss appellants' contribution cross-claims. The appellate court modified the order to reinstate appellants' contribution cross-claims against Reinauer and Reicon, finding a triable issue of fact regarding their negligence as vessel owners. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for appellants on plaintiff's claims and the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and found that material issues of fact exist regarding the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Con Edison. The LHWCA does not preempt the Labor Law claims against Con Edison and D'Onofrio, and third-party claims for contribution from an employer/vessel owner are not foreclosed under the LHWCA if based on negligence in the vessel-owner capacity.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.