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

Serrano v. 900 5th Avenue Corp.

Defendants Brown Harris Stevens Residential Management (BHS) and 900 5th Avenue Corp. (900 5th) moved to dismiss an employment discrimination case, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction. BHS argued it was not the plaintiff's employer, while 900 5th contended it did not meet Title VII's 15-employee minimum for an employer. The court denied BHS's motion, determining that BHS significantly affected the employment opportunities at 900 5th through its contractual authority and actions related to hiring, firing, discipline, and labor relations, thus falling within the broad definition of an "employer" under Title VII. Conversely, the court granted 900 5th's motion, ruling that its employees could not be counted with BHS's under a "joint employer" theory to satisfy the 15-employee minimum, as such an interpretation would contradict the purpose of protecting small businesses from Title VII liability.

Employment discriminationSubject matter jurisdictionRule 12(b)(1) motion to dismissTitle VIIEmployer definitionJoint employer theoryFederal Civil ProcedureStatutory minimum employeesSupervisory authority
References
17
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02237 [237 AD3d 1001]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

Villalta v. Tonka Realty On 5th, LLC

The plaintiff, Jose Villalta, appealed an order denying his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). Villalta sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while working on a demolition project. Conflicting testimonies between Villalta and a worksite superintendent regarding the accident's cause created factual disputes, making summary judgment inappropriate for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. For the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (b) (4) (i) concerning securely fastened portable ladders, the plaintiff also failed to eliminate triable issues of fact. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order denying the summary judgment motion was affirmed.

Ladder AccidentDemolition ProjectWorkplace InjuryLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(4)(i)Summary Judgment MotionTriable Issues of FactProximate CauseAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lafroscia v. MEPT 5th Avenue, LLC

The plaintiff, a journeyman for Able Rigging Contractors, allegedly sustained injuries on March 24, 2012, while constructing a tower crane at 309 Fifth Avenue, New York. He claims he slipped on oil and fell through an opening after unhooking his lanyard, which was too short to allow him to remain harnessed while moving between platforms. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241-a against defendants MEPT 5th Avenue, LLC and Lend Lease (US) Construction LMB Inc. The court denied the motion, finding an issue of fact regarding proximate cause for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and ruling that Labor Law § 241-a does not apply to tower cranes, as they are structures but not "buildings."

Summary JudgmentLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241-aProximate CauseConstruction AccidentTower CranePersonal InjurySafety DevicesFall from HeightSlipped on Oil
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2007

Azad v. 270 5th Realty Corp.

Abul Kaylam Azad, hired by 270 5th Realty Corp. to repair a gutter pipe, fell from an unsecured extension ladder placed on garbage. He sued for personal injuries, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially granted Azad's summary judgment motion on liability and denied the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court found Azad was not engaged in protected activities under Labor Law § 240(1) as his work was routine maintenance, and dismissed the Labor Law § 241(6) claim as the accident did not occur during construction, excavation, or demolition work. Additionally, claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence were dismissed, as Azad's negligent placement of the ladder was deemed the sole cause of the accident, not the debris or the premises' condition.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor Law §240(1)Labor Law §241(6)Labor Law §200Routine MaintenanceCorporate VeilProximate CauseNegligence
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Erie County Industrial Development Agency v. Roberts

This CPLR article 78 proceeding addresses whether the prevailing wage requirement of Labor Law § 220 applies to private construction projects financed by industrial development agencies using tax-exempt bonds. The petitioners, Quo Vadis Editions, Inc. and Erie County Industrial Development Agency, challenged the Commissioner of Labor's determination that such projects constitute "public works." Special Term ruled against the Commissioner, prohibiting the application of the prevailing wage requirement. The appellate court affirmed Special Term's decision, concluding that these projects are not "public works" because their fundamental purpose is private, with the private developer retaining economic ownership and benefits, despite the agency's formal title for financing mechanisms.

Prevailing WageIndustrial Development AgenciesTax-Exempt BondsPublic Works DoctrineLabor LawGovernmental FunctionPrivate DevelopmentDeclaratory ReliefStatutory InterpretationEconomic Development Incentives
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jefferies v. McKee Foods Corp.

The employer, McKee Foods Corporation, appealed a trial court's award of 50% permanent partial disability to employee Eva Mae Jefferies in a workers' compensation case. The core dispute was whether the medical impairment rating should be calculated using the Fourth or Fifth Edition of the AMA Guidelines. Dr. Hodges initially rated Jefferies at 8% impairment under the Fourth Edition, which increased to 25% under the Fifth Edition without any change in her medical condition. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in applying the Fifth Edition and held that the Guidelines in effect at the time of maximum medical improvement (Fourth Edition) should apply. The judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawMedical Impairment RatingAMA Guidelines (Fourth Edition)AMA Guidelines (Fifth Edition)Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Vocational DisabilityStatutory InterpretationTennessee Supreme CourtAppellate ReviewReversal and Remand
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Federation of Television & Radio Artists v. Benton & Bowles, Inc.

The plaintiff, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, AFL-CIO (AFTRA), initiated this action to vacate and modify a portion of an arbitration award against Benton & Bowles, Inc. (B&B). The dispute centered on performer compensation for rebroadcasts of the 'Texas' soap opera on a hybrid free TV/basic cable system, a scenario not explicitly covered by their collective bargaining agreement (TV Code), and B&B's unauthorized editing of the program. The arbitration panel found B&B violated the TV Code by editing without AFTRA's consent and fashioned a compensation remedy. The District Court affirmed the arbitrators' compensation award, finding it a plausible solution to an unforeseen contractual gap. However, the court vacated the part of the award that implicitly permitted continued unauthorized editing, ruling that this exceeded the arbitrators' contractual authority, and remanded the case for modification to enjoin B&B from further unauthorized editing.

Labor disputeArbitration awardCollective bargaining agreementTV CodeRebroadcast feesEditing rightsArbitrator authorityJudicial reviewContract interpretationSummary judgment
References
6
Case No. 2019-06-0815
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2019

Stewart, Michael v. Don Kennedy Roofing

Michael Stewart, an employee of Don Kennedy Roofing, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing challenging the denial of his workers' compensation claim. He alleged a shoulder injury from a fall on a wet restroom floor at work on March 26, 2019. Don Kennedy Roofing denied the claim, asserting Mr. Stewart did not fall as described and presenting edited video surveillance footage and testimonies to support their position. The Court found the employer's video editing troubling but noted Mr. Stewart failed to provide contradictory evidence. The Court denied Mr. Stewart's requested relief, ruling that he was unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits due to insufficient evidence.

Workplace InjuryFall AccidentShoulder InjuryExpedited HearingDenial of ClaimSurveillance VideoEmployee TestimonyEmployer DefenseBurden of ProofMedical Benefits
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Justice Preslar dissents, arguing for a liberal construction of the Workers' Compensation Act, distinct from civil procedure rules. He contends that the majority's interpretation of Section 5b is inconsistent with legislative intent. The dissent highlights a valid El Paso County Commissioners Court order declaring July 5th a holiday, which should excuse the appellant's late filing. Preslar asserts that the defendant's summary judgment evidence failed to prove July 5th was not a legal holiday in El Paso County. Citing Supreme Court cases, he argues that a claimant's substantive rights should not be thwarted by a court clerk's actions or by an external entity like the commissioners court preventing a timely filing. Therefore, the dissent concludes that the injured workman's petition should be filed, and the summary judgment should be reversed.

Workers' Compensation ActLiberal ConstructionSummary JudgmentLegal HolidayTimely FilingCourt ProcedureJudicial DissentTexas LawAppellate ReviewClerk Misconduct
References
7
Case No. 01-16-00847-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Adan G. Adame v. Glendale Optical

The case involves 106 sandblasters appealing the dismissal of their silica exposure claims. In 2005, the Texas Legislature enacted Chapter 90 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, creating a Silica multidistrict litigation (MDL) pretrial docket, establishing procedures for claims to advance to trial upon submission of compliant medical reports. The statute was amended in 2013 to allow dismissal without prejudice of pre-2005 claims if claimants failed to file qualifying medical reports by a specified deadline. The sandblasters filed their medical reports in 2013, but many were prepared before the 2005 statute specifying report content. The MDL Court sustained objections to almost all medical reports, dismissing all 106 claims without prejudice to refiling. The sandblasters appealed, arguing Chapter 90 is unconstitutional due to vagueness and retroactive application. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, overruling the sandblasters' constitutional challenges. It found that the statute's reference to the Code of Federal Regulations for impairment determination was not unconstitutionally vague, nor were the requirements for detailed medical and occupational histories. The court also rejected the argument that not specifying the AMA Guides edition caused vagueness, noting the MDL Court had clarified the applicable edition. The court further dismissed the challenge regarding specific x-ray findings for lung abnormalities, pointing to a 'safety valve' provision for atypical cases. Finally, the court held that granting the MDL Court authority to evaluate medical report sufficiency does not render the statute vague, aligning with established judicial roles in assessing expert evidence. The court concluded that the 2013 amendment adding dismissal procedures was not an unconstitutional retroactive law, as claimants had no vested right to indefinite litigation without providing reliable medical evidence.

Silica ExposureMultidistrict LitigationConstitutional LawDue ProcessVagueness ChallengeRetroactive LawMedical ReportsImpairment RatingOccupational DiseasePulmonary Impairment
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 28 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