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 02959
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2025

Weekes v. Tishman Tech. Corp.

Samuel Weekes, an employee, was injured while dismantling a scaffold at a construction site managed by Tishman Technologies Corporation. He sued, alleging violations of Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6). The Supreme Court initially denied Weekes's summary judgment motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss, also denying Weekes's motion for leave to renew. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, ruling that Tishman could be considered a statutory agent of the owner due to its control over safety. The court also found that Weekes's activity was covered under Labor Law § 240(1) and that triable issues of fact existed regarding the elevation-related hazard and proximate cause, thereby denying the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. The denial of Weekes's motion for leave to renew was affirmed, and part of the appeal from the November 4, 2020 order was dismissed as academic.

Construction AccidentLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationScaffold SafetyElevation HazardSummary JudgmentStatutory AgentConstruction Manager LiabilityTriable Issues of Fact
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palanquet v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

Plaintiffs Guy and Mary Palanquet sued Weeks Marine, Inc. for injuries sustained by Guy Palanquet while working on the Robert Moses Causeway bridge reconstruction project, alleging a violation of New York Labor Law § 240(1). Weeks, the general contractor, impleaded C.B. Contracting Corp. (Palanquet's employer) and United States Fire Insurance Company (C.B.'s insurer), seeking defense and indemnification from U.S. Fire. U.S. Fire cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing it had no duty to defend Weeks. The court granted Palanquet's motion for summary judgment against Weeks, finding Weeks liable under Labor Law § 240(1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices. The court also granted U.S. Fire's cross-motion for summary judgment, determining that an 'Additional Exclusion' in the policy relieved U.S. Fire of its duty to defend or indemnify Weeks because Weeks' own negligence caused the injury. Weeks' motion for summary judgment against U.S. Fire was denied.

Summary judgmentNew York Labor Law § 240(1)Construction accidentLadder fallGeneral contractor liabilityInsurance coverageAdditional insuredWatercraft exclusionDisclaimer of coverageEstoppel
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kennedy v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

Martin R. Kennedy was injured while working on a barge chartered by his employer, American Bridge Company, from Week’s Marine, Inc. Kennedy fell from a wooden plank serving as the barge's gangway, which was supplied by American Bridge. He brought suit pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), but Magistrate Judge David F. Jordan granted summary judgment for Week’s Marine, concluding they had no duty to provide a safe gangway under a bare boat charter. Kennedy appealed this judgment, arguing Week's Marine had knowledge of workers on the barge. The District Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Week's Marine, having relinquished control of the vessel in a bare boat charter, was not responsible for conditions arising after the charter or for providing a gangway, as the charterer, American Bridge, became the owner pro hac vice and bore that duty.

Bare Boat CharterMaritime LawSummary JudgmentLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActVessel Owner LiabilityCharterer LiabilityGangway SafetyDuty of CareOwner Pro Hac ViceAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. Index No. 28997/20; Appeal No. 5887; Case No. 2025-00685
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

Roque v. 240 Lincoln Place LLC

Plaintiff Antonio Rosario Roque sought summary judgment on liability for his Labor Law § 240(1) claim after falling from a 12-foot A-frame ladder that slipped while he was working on it. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted his motion. Defendant 240 Lincoln Place LLC appealed, arguing that Roque was a recalcitrant worker or the sole proximate cause of the accident, citing his use of a closed A-frame ladder and the availability of an eight-foot ladder. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's order. The court found that the defendant failed to raise an issue of fact, noting Roque's valid reasons for his ladder choice and the instability of the alternative ladder.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentLadder FallWorker SafetyDefendant LiabilityPlaintiff RightsNegligence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'HARA v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

Plaintiffs Gerard O’Hara and Lisa O’Hara brought this suit under the Jones Act, general maritime law, and the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act for injuries sustained by Gerard O’Hara while performing work at the Staten Island Ferry pier on September 17, 1991. O’Hara was employed by defendant Collazo Contractors, a subcontractor of defendant Weeks Marine. Weeks Marine moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ Jones Act claims, asserting O’Hara did not meet the definition of a “seaman” on a “vessel in navigation.” The Court, after hearing oral argument and reserving decision, applied tests from Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis and Tonnesen v. Yonkers Contracting Co. to evaluate seaman status and vessel in navigation status. The court found that O'Hara did not meet the requirements for seaman status, concluding that his duties as a dockbuilder did not contribute to the function of the barge or its mission, and he lacked a substantial connection to a vessel in navigation. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and plaintiffs' Jones Act claims were dismissed.

Jones ActSeaman StatusSummary JudgmentMaritime LawVessel in NavigationDockbuilderLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActWork PlatformNegligenceEmployment Injury
References
8
Case No. ADJ3722656 (BAK 0145213)
Regular
Jul 24, 2014

WILLIAM CASTO vs. GENE WATSON CONSTRUCTION, COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY BY CHARTIS

This case concerns an applicant suffering severe burns who sought further temporary disability (TD) indemnity after the initial award expired. The Appeals Board overturned the WCJ's 104-week TD cap, finding the 240-week cap for severe burns applicable, extending TD entitlement to August 6, 2007. The Board also adopted the WCJ's calculation of the third-party credit but clarified its application based on the established total civil damages and defendant's comparative negligence. Consequently, the award was amended to reflect the extended TD period and the 240-week statutory cap.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityPermanent and StationaryLabor Code Section 4656104-week cap240-week capSevere BurnsSubstantial EvidenceMedical Opinion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nielsen v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

Francis Nielsen, a dock-builder, and his wife, Jacqueline Nielsen, sued Weeks Marine Inc. for personal injuries and loss of consortium under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The case, initially filed in state court, was removed to federal court. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, citing a procedural defect in removal, but maintained subject matter jurisdiction under the Jones Act. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that Barge 525 was not a 'vessel in navigation' and therefore Nielsen was not a 'seaman' under the Jones Act, dismissing all claims.

Jones ActSeaman StatusVessel in NavigationSummary JudgmentMaritime LawPersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumRemoval JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureBarge
References
17
Case No. ADJ2212690 (RIV 048643)
Regular
Mar 20, 2009

JAMIE WOLDEN (deceased), PATRICIA WOLDEN, individually and as guardian ad litem for DAVID EYLER and ANITA WOLDEN vs. BRIGHT DEVELOPMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a widow seeking death benefits for her husband, who died from a multi-drug intoxication more than 240 weeks after his industrial injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that the death benefit claim was untimely. The Board relied on *Massey v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, holding that the 240-week period from the date of injury is a prerequisite for death benefits, which had expired before the decedent's death. Therefore, no death benefit claim could arise, and the applicant's claim was properly disallowed.

Death benefitsLabor Code section 5406(c)240-week limitationdate of injurydate of deathindustrial injurypermanent disabilitymedical treatmentprescription drugsmulti-drug intoxication
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Salvet v. Union Carbide Linde Division

Claimant sustained two compensable injuries, leading to a permanent partial disability classification in 1983 with a nonschedule award of $95 per week. Subsequently, in 1984, the claimant was diagnosed with a 24.2% occupational binaural hearing loss, resulting in a schedule award of $105 per week for 36.3 weeks. The Workers' Compensation Board, following an application by the carrier, reduced this schedule award to $10 per week. This reduction was based on Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a), which sets a maximum of $105 per week for compensation for permanent or temporary partial disability, indicating that the aggregate of both awards should not exceed this statutory limit. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the statutory maximum applies to the total of all permanent partial disability awards, irrespective of whether they are schedule or nonschedule awards.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityOccupational Hearing LossSchedule AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory MaximumAggregate AwardsWorkers' Compensation Board AppealStatutory InterpretationConcurrent Awards
References
6
Case No. ADJ10649068
Regular
Dec 08, 2017

PATRICK TERRY (Dec'd), WENDY TERRY (Widow) vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a widow's claim for death benefits after her husband died from an injury that contributed to his death. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that the claim was barred by Labor Code section 5406(b). This statute prohibits death benefit claims filed more than 240 weeks from the "date of injury." The Board clarified that for a specific injury, the date of injury is fixed and cannot be extended to the date of death, even if death is a consequence of that injury. Therefore, the widow's claim was dismissed because it was filed beyond the 240-week statutory limit.

Labor Code § 5406(b)death benefits240-week limitationdate of injuryspecific injurycompensable consequencestatute of limitationsPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and Award
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 2,850 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