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

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. 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. GOL 099880
Regular
Sep 20, 2007

THOMAS LAWRENCE vs. M/M MECHANICAL, INC., ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a clerical error in the arbitrator's supplemental award. The original award mistakenly stated permanent disability indemnity was payable for 344 weeks when the correct duration should have been 334 weeks. The Board amended the award to reflect 334 weeks of indemnity, otherwise affirming the arbitrator's decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationClerical ErrorPermanent Disability IndemnitySupplemental Findings and AwardArbitrator's DecisionFinding of FactAmended AwardZurich Insurance CompanyM/M Mechanical
References
0
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. 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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2000

Claim of Lesperance v. Gulf Oil Co.

The claimant, a former truck driver for Gulf Oil Company, developed bilateral torn rotator cuffs, diagnosed in September 1991, while working part-time for Susse Chalet. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled the condition an occupational disease, fixing the disablement date as September 3, 1991, and attributed it to employment with both Gulf and Susse Chalet, allowing Susse Chalet to pursue apportionment. The current appeal concerns the Board's decision from April 3, 2000, which established the claimant's average weekly wage based solely on employment with Susse Chalet. The claimant argued that due to the disease's degenerative nature and long employment with Gulf, wages from both employers should be considered for the average weekly wage. However, the Board's decision to base the average weekly wage solely on Susse Chalet employment was affirmed, citing Workers' Compensation Law provisions that define wage and average weekly wage based on employment at the time of injury and absence of provisions for successive employers.

Average Weekly Wage CalculationOccupational Disease ApportionmentDate of DisablementSuccessive Employment WagesRotator Cuff InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law InterpretationDegenerative DiseaseStatutory DefinitionsConcurrent Employment DistinctionBoard Decision Appeal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fletcher v. Wegmans

Claimant sustained a work-related knee injury in November 2002. The Workers' Compensation Board calculated her average weekly wage at $398.49 by applying Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (3) and (4), as the claimant did not work a standard five or six-day week. The employer appealed, arguing improper statutory application. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board correctly utilized Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (3) to determine annual average earnings and subsequently Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (4) to establish the average weekly wage.

Work-related injuryAverage weekly wage calculationWorkers' Compensation Law § 14Statutory interpretationKnee injuryBoard decision affirmedWage calculation methodsAppellate reviewEmployer appealWorkers' Compensation benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kellish v. Kellish Tire Sales, Inc.

The claimant, who suffered a work-related injury in 1999, applied for workers' compensation benefits in 2001. The Workers' Compensation Board initially set his average weekly wage at $126, which was based on his part-time employment where he worked one day a week and received $126 plus health insurance. The claimant appealed, arguing that his average weekly wage should be calculated under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3) and that health insurance payments should be included. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the initial finding. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence that the claimant voluntarily limited his work availability. The court also held that health insurance payments are not part of the definition of wages under Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (9).

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WagePart-time EmploymentVoluntary LimitationHealth InsuranceWage CalculationAppellate ReviewNew York LawStatutory InterpretationWorkers’ Compensation Law § 14
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 819 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