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. 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

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. 2024 NYSlipOp 01444 [225 AD3d 1189]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2024

Jesmain v. Time Cap Dev. Corp.

Plaintiff Connor B. Jesmain was injured at a construction site on property owned by 980 James Street, LLC, while moving a stack of drywall panels that fell on his ankle. He commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Time Cap Development Corp. and 980 James Street, LLC (980 James defendants), and Interior Builders Framing and Drywall LLC. The 980 James defendants also sought contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Syracuse Energy Systems, Inc. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action due to issues of fact regarding safe storage and a dangerous material pile. The court also granted summary judgment dismissing Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against 980 James, denied contractual indemnification for 980 James defendants against Syracuse Energy, and granted summary judgment dismissing 980 James defendants' cross-claim for contractual indemnification against Interior Builders. The decision affirmed the denial of Interior Builders' motion to dismiss the amended complaint and other cross-claims.

Construction Site InjuryDrywall AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sciame v. Airborne Express, Inc.

This case addresses the application of Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a) concerning the maximum weekly benefits a claimant can receive for concurrent schedule and nonschedule awards. The court reaffirms its established precedent that these concurrent payments cannot exceed the statutory cap of $400 per week for 2004 injuries, irrespective of whether the nonschedule award stems from a permanent disability. This principle was also extended to include periodic payments for a schedule loss of use award and nonschedule award payments for temporary disability. The court concluded that the 2009 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 and 25 did not indicate legislative intent to overturn this longstanding cap. Consequently, the Board's decision, which held that the claimant's receipt of maximum weekly benefits from a nonschedule award precluded additional benefits from a schedule loss of use award, was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsBenefit MaximumsConcurrent AwardsSchedule Loss of Use AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory CapJudicial Precedent AffirmationWorkers' Compensation Law Interpretation2009 Amendments AnalysisPermanent Disability Benefits
References
11
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. 2017 NY Slip Op 08460 [156 AD3d 404]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2017

Clavin v. CAP Equipment Leasing Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order, dismissing third-party claims for common law indemnification, contribution, and contractual indemnification. The court found that the plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' as defined in Workers' Compensation Law § 11, making common law indemnification and contribution claims unsustainable against the employer. The claim for contractual indemnification was deemed unenforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, as it would indemnify CAP Rents for its own potential negligence. Additionally, the claim for failure to procure insurance was dismissed because the reservation contract did not expressly and specifically require Schiavone to name CAP Rents as an additional insured. CAP Equipment Leasing Corporation was also found to lack standing to enforce the contract.

indemnificationcontributiongrave injuryWorkers' CompensationGeneral Obligations Lawcontractual indemnificationinsurance procurementadditional insuredsummary judgmentnegligence
References
7
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04073
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of Jagiello v. Air Tech Lab, Inc.

Czeslaw Jagiello had an established workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease that became disabling in 2017, in addition to a prior claim for World Trade Center site injuries, under which he received $400 weekly in temporary partial disability benefits. The dispute revolved around the amount of additional benefits for the occupational disease claim, with the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) initially determining $480.71 weekly but capping the concurrent award at $801.32 weekly, leading to an award of $401.32 weekly for the occupational disease. Jagiello argued the statutory cap should be $870.61 weekly, thus seeking $470.61 weekly. The Appellate Division affirmed the WCB's decision, clarifying that while the combined weekly benefit was statutorily capped at $870.61 under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (6), the appropriate temporary partial disability award, being two-thirds of the difference between pre- and post-accident average weekly wages, was correctly limited to $801.32, which was two-thirds of his average weekly wages at the date of disablement.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseTemporary Partial DisabilityConcurrent AwardsStatutory Maximum RatesAverage Weekly WageWorld Trade Center ClaimAppellate ReviewDisability BenefitsBenefit Calculation
References
7
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,932 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