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. 2017 NY Slip Op 00959 [147 AD3d 815]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Gonsalves v. 35 W. 54 Realty Corp.

The plaintiffs, Andrew Gonsalves and Shahazad M. Rasheed, sustained personal injuries at a construction site managed by Geiger Construction Company, Inc. and owned by 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. when a parapet wall collapsed during the lowering of a power washer. They sued 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. and Perimeter Bridge & Scaffold Co. for Labor Law violations. 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. then initiated third-party actions against Geiger Construction for contribution and common-law indemnification. After a jury found Geiger Construction negligent, the Supreme Court denied Geiger Construction's motions for judgment as a matter of law. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed these judgments, concluding that there was no rational basis for the jury to find Geiger Construction negligent, as 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence against them. Consequently, the third-party causes of action against Geiger Construction were dismissed.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawNegligenceContributionIndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewJudgment as a Matter of LawJury Verdict
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00956
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Cacanoski v. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC

The plaintiff, Krste Cacanoski, was injured after falling through a skylight during asbestos removal work for 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC. He commenced an action against 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, subsequently initiated a third-party action against Cacanoski's employer, Superior Abatement, Inc., seeking contractual indemnification under a subcontract executed after the accident. The Supreme Court denied both the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law claim and Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order with respect to the plaintiff's motion, granting summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, finding that the absence of necessary protection was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The court affirmed the denial of Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the parties intended the indemnification provision to apply retroactively.

Labor Law § 240(1)Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAsbestos RemovalFall from heightSky-lightContractual IndemnificationRetroactive AgreementWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Appellate Division
References
19
Case No. 71 Civ. 2877
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Local 40, International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers

Plaintiffs Roysworth D. Grant and Willie Ellis initiated a contempt motion against Local 40, the Joint Apprenticeship Committee, and Allied Budding Metal Industries for non-compliance with the prior "Werker Order" and "Knapp Order". District Judge Robert L. Carter, who inherited the underlying case related to the Werker Order, declined jurisdiction over the Knapp Order contempt motion, directing it back to Judge Knapp. However, Judge Carter asserted jurisdiction over the Werker Order contempt, refuting defendants' claims that the order had expired and that plaintiffs lacked standing. The court clarified that the consent decree's termination clause only ended close supervision, not the permanent injunctions against discrimination, and affirmed the inherent power to enforce decrees. A future conference is scheduled to address specific allegations and the EEOC's investigation status.

Contempt of CourtConsent Decree EnforcementJurisdictionStandingTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Employment DiscriminationUnion PracticesHiring HallInjunctive Relief
References
28
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05301 [163 AD3d 805]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2018

Matter of 35 Jackson House Apts. Corp. v. Yaworski

The landlord, 35 Jackson House Apartments Corporation, initiated a summary holdover proceeding against shareholder Monika Yaworski due to unauthorized apartment renovations. A settlement stipulated that Yaworski provide details of licensed workers for inspection and compliance. Despite multiple extensions, Yaworski failed to meet these material terms. Consequently, the Civil Court granted the landlord's motion for a warrant of eviction, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Term. The Appellate Division, Second Department, further affirmed this outcome, concluding that Yaworski's repeated non-compliance constituted a substantial breach, not a de minimis default.

holdover proceedingstipulation of settlementwarrant of evictionunauthorized renovationslandlord-tenant lawcontractual breachappellate reviewdefault judgmentproperty lawjudicial discretion
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Iron Workers Locals 40, 361 & 417 Health Fund v. Dinnigan

The case involves a dispute between the Iron Workers Locals 40, 361, & 417 Health Fund and Robert Dinnigan, Amanda C. Dinnigan Supplemental Needs Irrevocable Trust, and their attorney regarding reimbursement of medical expenses. The Health Fund sought nearly $1.7 million paid for Amanda Dinnigan's severe injuries from a third-party tortfeasor settlement. Defendants argued against reimbursement, citing state anti-subrogation laws and the "made-whole" doctrine. The court ruled that the Health Fund was self-insured, thus preempting state law, and that the 2008 SPD, which rejected the made-whole doctrine, applied to most expenses. Ultimately, the court ordered judgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,292,278, having reduced the claim by 25% to account for the Defendants' attorneys' fees and expenses in securing the original settlement.

ERISAEmployee BenefitsHealth Fund ReimbursementSubrogationEquitable ReliefSelf-Insured PlanMade-Whole DoctrinePersonal Injury SettlementSupplemental Needs TrustAttorneys' Fees
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Old Country Iron Works, Inc. v. Iron Workers Locals 40, 361 & 417 of the International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers Union Security Funds

This labor-management dispute began with Old Country Iron Works, Inc. seeking to stay arbitration initiated by Local 361, claiming its collective bargaining agreement was solely with Local 40. After the case was removed to federal court, Old Country moved for remand, while the unions cross-moved for summary judgment to compel arbitration. The District Court denied Old Country's remand motion, asserting federal jurisdiction due to the dispute's reliance on interpreting the collective bargaining agreement under the Taft-Hartley Act. However, the court also denied the unions' summary judgment motions without prejudice, citing uncertainties regarding the need for an arbitration order and the scope of the arbitration agreement concerning potential jurisdictional issues. The parties were subsequently directed to engage in settlement discussions.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationRemoval JurisdictionTaft-Hartley ActSection 301Summary JudgmentMotion to RemandFederal Common LawJurisdictional Dispute
References
20
Case No. ADJ6889455
Regular
Jun 10, 2011

SALVADOR RUIZ vs. WASTE CONNECTIONS INC., ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a psychiatric injury claim where the employer asserted a good faith personnel action defense. The Board found the employer failed to prove the personnel action was in good faith, noting evidence of racial animus and inconsistent disciplinary practices. Furthermore, even if the action were deemed in good faith, the employer did not meet its burden of proving it was a substantial cause (35-40%) of the applicant's psychiatric injury, as the medical evidence did not apportion causation. Therefore, the defense under Labor Code section 3208.3(h) was not established.

Labor Code section 3208.3(h)psychiatric injurygood faith personnel actionsubstantial causeobjective reasonablenesspretextualagreed medical evaluatorcausation apportionmentmedical evidencediscriminatory
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2002

Sharp v. Scandic Wall Ltd. Partnership

Gil Sharp, an elevator mechanic, sustained injuries on October 31, 1996, when an elevator car he was working on at 40 Wall Street fell 30 feet after he mistakenly cut supporting cables. He sued the premises owner, 40 Wall Street Development Associates, alleging violations of various Labor Law sections and OSHA regulations. The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss all claims, while Sharp cross-moved for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241-a, and to amend his bill of particulars. The court dismissed claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 241-a, 241 (6), and OSHA regulations. However, Sharp was granted summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), with the court finding the defendant liable for failing to provide adequate safety devices.

Elevator accidentPersonal injuryLabor Law § 240(1)Summary judgmentIndustrial CodeWorkplace safetyGravity-related hazardConstruction site accidentFall from heightOwner liability
References
5
Case No. ADJ9571986
Regular
Feb 22, 2019

ANNE CHOU vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the apportionment of psychiatric permanent disability. The Board clarified that Labor Code section 3208.3(h) pertains to the causation of the injury itself, not the apportionment of permanent disability. Therefore, lawful nondiscriminatory personnel actions, which did not meet the 35% causation threshold for non-compensability, cannot be used to apportion permanent disability under Labor Code section 4663. Accordingly, the applicant's permanent disability was increased from 19% to 22%.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryGastrointestinal SystemPsycheHypertensionTemporary DisabilityPermanent Disability
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,162 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