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

Linhart v. Parnes

The plaintiff, who has a collective bargaining agreement with Local 225, International Jewelry Workers Union, A. F. L. — 0.1. 0., sought an injunction pendente lite against defendant Local 150, International Jewelry Workers Union, A. F. L. — 0.1. 0. Local 150 had commenced picketing the plaintiff’s premises with a sign falsely stating that the plaintiff was on strike, and had also filed a petition for certification with the National Labor Relations Board. The court granted the injunction, citing precedents that allow enjoining picketing when its object is not to organize employees but to exert economic pressure upon the employer to coerce employees into joining a particular union, or to compel employer recognition while Labor Relations Board proceedings are pending.

injunctionlabor disputepicketingcollective bargaining agreementNational Labor Relations Boardorganizational purposeseconomic pressureunion recognitionCivil Practice Actpendente lite
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1990

North Fork Environmental Council, Inc. v. Janoski

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Town Board of Riverhead's determination to grant a special permit for a condominium development to Mill Pound Commons. The petitioner argued that the environmental impact statements were defective because the Town Board failed to consider the cumulative environmental effects of the project with other proposed projects in the Saw Mill Creek basin and did not consider archaeological impacts. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, affirmed the Town Board's decision, finding that the projects were not "reasonably related" for a mandatory cumulative impact review and that archaeological impacts were not raised or supported during the review process. The court emphasized that a Critical Environmental Area designation alone does not mandate a cohesive framework for cumulative impact review and that new issues cannot be raised after the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement process.

Environmental Impact StatementSEQRACumulative Impact ReviewSpecial PermitCondominium UseTown Board DeterminationCritical Environmental AreaArchaeological ResourcesPublic CommentCPLR Article 78
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heidelmark v. State

Claimant, an employee of Pike Construction Company, suffered an injury when a 150-pound PVC pipe fell on him during a dismantling operation. The incident occurred while the claimant was securing a ladder and a coworker attempted to cut and hold the pipe without adequate safety devices. The Court of Claims initially dismissed claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) but granted partial summary judgment to the claimant for a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The defendant appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the finding of a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), emphasizing the absence of proper safety devices and the inherent risk of the work method employed.

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentFalling ObjectLadder SafetyAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseSafety DevicesLabor Law Violation
References
8
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01671 [225 AD3d 536]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2024

Carranza v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order concerning a construction accident where plaintiff Delis Vasquez Carranza was injured by a falling 150-pound panel in an elevator shaft. The Appellate Division granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, determining that the injury resulted from a falling object that should have been secured by a safety device. Concurrently, it affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against defendant Turner Construction Company. The court concluded that these claims were properly dismissed because the accident stemmed from the means and methods of the work, which were directed and controlled by the plaintiff's employer, and the general contractor's general supervisory powers were insufficient to establish liability for such claims.

Labor Law 240(1)Falling Object InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary Judgment MotionAppellate Division DecisionGeneral Contractor ResponsibilityEmployer ControlWorkplace Safety ViolationsElevator Shaft IncidentNegligence Dismissal
References
4
Case No. 2-06-132-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2007

William Lowe, M.D. v. Mary Hernandez

Mary Hernandez, an employee of Calico Corners, sustained a work-related wrist injury and was treated by Dr. William Lowe. Dr. Lowe completed Texas Workers’ Compensation Work Status Reports (WSRs) throughout her recovery. Following a Functional Capacity Examination (FCE), Dr. Lowe mistakenly reported a permanent five-pound lifting restriction for Hernandez instead of fifty pounds, despite the FCE showing she could lift up to fifty pounds for some tasks. Calico Corners terminated Hernandez's employment based on this erroneous permanent restriction, as her job required lifting up to fifty pounds. Hernandez sued Dr. Lowe for negligence, claiming his misreporting and failure to correct the error caused her termination. A jury found Dr. Lowe 100% negligent, awarding Hernandez $179,589 in damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of Dr. Lowe's negligence and rejecting his arguments regarding expert testimony, contributory negligence, and charge errors.

References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Benware v. New York Telephone Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, which affirmed an Administrative Law Judge's ruling that a self-insured employer was responsible for $300 in attorney expenses for a claimant's injury sustained in an automobile accident. The employer contested a $150 reimbursement portion, arguing it was arbitrary and lacked substantial evidence, as the attorney conceded only one trip to Albany was made, not two, and there was no proof the $150 expense for local counsel was incurred. The court agreed, finding the board's determination regarding the $150 for securing local counsel unsupported by substantial evidence and arbitrary. The decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the board for further proceedings.

Attorney FeesExpense ReimbursementTravel ExpensesAdministrative Law Judge DecisionsAppellate Court ReviewEvidentiary SupportArbitrary and Capricious RulingCase RemittalWorkers' Compensation ClaimsLegal Representation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Medafrica Line, S.P.A. v. American West African Freight Conference

On March 20, 1984, Medafrica Line, S.P.A. (Medafrica) obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the American West African Freight Conference (AWAFC) from collecting a $9,118,301 penalty. As a condition, Medafrica posted a $150,000 bond issued by the Insurance Company of North America (INA). The injunction was contingent on the outcome of Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) proceedings and any subsequent arbitration. On February 18, 1986, the FMC dismissed Medafrica's administrative complaint with prejudice, and the time for appeal or arbitration expired. AWAFC subsequently moved to dissolve the injunction, dismiss the action, and seek judgment for $150,000 against INA on the bond, arguing they were wrongfully enjoined. The court found that AWAFC was indeed wrongfully enjoined and suffered damages because Medafrica became insolvent during the injunction's pendency, preventing AWAFC from collecting the penalty. Therefore, the court granted AWAFC's motions, dissolving the preliminary injunction, dismissing the action, and holding INA liable to AWAFC for $150,000 on the injunction bond.

Preliminary InjunctionInjunction BondWrongful InjunctionDamagesBankruptcySuretyFederal Maritime CommissionFed.R.Civ.P. 65(c)Fed.R.Civ.P. 65.1Collection
References
4
Case No. ADJ4655433 (STK 0183897) ADJ4135432 (STK 0183898)
Regular
Sep 08, 2010

CARMELA GARCIA vs. E & J GALLO WINERY, P.S.I.

This case concerns a request for supplemental attorney's fees following an unsuccessful petition for writ of review by defendant E & J Gallo Winery. The Court of Appeal previously granted the applicant's request for fees under Labor Code § 5801 and remanded the matter. The applicant's attorney requested $3,150.00 for services related to answering the petition, which the defendant did not dispute in amount, only in principle. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the requested amount reasonable and issued a supplemental award of $3,150.00 in attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5801attorney's feessupplemental awardpetition for writ of reviewremittiturreasonable basisapplicantdefendantE & J Gallo Winery
References
1
Case No. ADJ10192587
Regular
Dec 27, 2017

TIMOTHY WILCOX vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involved a workers' compensation claim where the applicant, Timothy Wilcox, sought benefits for an abdominal injury sustained while lifting. The defendant contested the 50-pound lifting restriction recommended by the applicant's Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME), Dr. Fearer. The Appeals Board upheld the WCJ's decision, finding Dr. Fearer's medical opinion to be substantial evidence, even though it changed significantly. The Board adopted Dr. Fearer's reasoning that the 50-pound restriction, supported by applicant's credible testimony and affecting his ability to perform his firefighter duties, justified an increased permanent disability rating.

workers' compensationPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical ExaminerPQMEwhole person impairmentWPIlifting restrictioninternal herniasmall bowel resectionAlmaraz/Guzman
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spielberg v. American Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiffs secured a $2,225,000 verdict against American Airlines, Inc., for emotional distress caused by severe airplane turbulence. Defendants subsequently filed a motion for a new trial or remittitur. The court, applying New York's 'deviates materially' standard for remittitur in diversity cases, upheld the $150,000 awards for past emotional distress for most plaintiffs, finding them consistent with comparable New York verdicts. However, the court granted remittitur for plaintiff Melissa Katz's $150,000 award, concluding that the lay testimony from her mother lacked sufficient evidentiary basis to support emotional damages for the two-year-old child.

emotional distressremittiturairplane turbulencejury verdictNew York lawdamagespast emotional distressfuture emotional distresssufficiency of evidenceminor plaintiff
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 208 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