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. ADJ7582813
Regular
Sep 23, 2011

ERNESTO ZARCO vs. ALLDRIN ORCHARDS, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, Alldrin Orchards, Inc., and Zenith Insurance Company, regarding a decision made on June 30, 2011. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted this petition. The Board needs more time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. Therefore, reconsideration is granted for further study and potential proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersDelora E. LoweAlfany LaneRonnie G. Caplane
References
0
Case No. CA 12-01229
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2013

STEIGER, GARY v. LPCIMINELLI, INC.

Plaintiff Gary Steiger commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained after tripping and falling while exiting a portable toilet at a construction site. The plaintiff's employer contracted with defendant Orchard Park CCRC, the landowner, for fiber optic installation. Defendant LPCiminelli, Inc. acted as the general contractor and was responsible for placing the portable toilets. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to dismiss certain Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against LPCiminelli, Inc. based on a lack of actual notice, and fully dismissing these claims against Orchard Park CCRC. Furthermore, the court dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, ruling that the accident site was not a 'passageway' under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1). One justice dissented regarding the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Site AccidentDangerous ConditionActual NoticeConstructive NoticeSupervisory ControlPortable Toilet PlacementTrip and Fall
References
40
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03157
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2020

Matter of Jones v. Burrell Orchards, Inc.

The case involves Paulette Jones, widow of Roy Jones, appealing a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Roy Jones suffered a work injury in 1996, resulting in permanent total disability, with benefits paid until his death in 2017. Paulette Jones filed a death benefits claim and sought an upward adjustment to the average weekly wage and reimbursement for home health care services provided to her late husband. The Board denied these requests, citing the doctrine of laches. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision regarding laches, finding the delay in asserting rights was explained by the decedent's lack of representation and conflicting wage evidence. The court concluded that the Board's application of laches was improper, modifying the decision and granting the motion to reopen the injury claim.

Workers' Compensation LawLaches DoctrineAverage Weekly Wage ModificationDeath BenefitsReopening ClaimPermanent Total DisabilityAppellate ReviewHome Health Care ReimbursementSpinal Cord InjuryEmployer-Employee Dispute
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Orchard Grove of Dutchess, Inc. v. State

The claimant, Orchard Grove of Dutchess, Inc., sought damages for the 1999 appropriation by the New York State Department of Transportation of its access rights to the Taconic State Parkway. The court determined that the claimant possessed no vested right of access—whether express, implied, prescriptive, or statutory—to the parkway. The State's prior allowance of a driveway was deemed a revocable license or gratuitous benefit, not a permanent legal right. Consequently, the court found no compensable taking of the claimant's property and dismissed the claim, also striking the claimant's appraisal for relying on a speculative subdivision development that lacked reasonable probability of approval.

Property RightsAccess RightsEminent DomainLand AppropriationHighway LawPrescriptive EasementAdverse PossessionGovernmental ImmunityProperty ValuationSpeculative Development
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2009

Cook v. Orchard Park Estates, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of third-party defendant John Mauro, Co., filed an action for injuries from a slip and fall at a construction site against general contractor Matzen Construction, Inc., property owner Orchard Park Estates, Inc., and leaseholder Scott Ventures, alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court denied all motions for summary judgment, leading to an appeal by Mauro and Scott Ventures. The appellate court modified the lower court's order by dismissing the plaintiff's Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, ruling that the location of the fall did not fall under the cited NYCRR sections. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law § 200 (1) and general negligence claims, citing the existence of triable issues of fact concerning notice of the dangerous condition and control over the work activity.

Construction AccidentSlip and FallLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)General NegligenceSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pecorella v. Oak Orchard Community Health Center, Inc.

Plaintiff, a white male, sued Oak Orchard Community Health Center for employment discrimination after a job offer for 'physician's assistant' was withdrawn. The offer was rescinded because the plaintiff allegedly violated a confidentiality agreement regarding salary terms. Plaintiff brought eleven causes of action, including violations of Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and Executive Order 11246, as well as constitutional claims. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding he did not meet the necessary burden. The court also granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, ruling that the plaintiff lacked standing under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, and that Executive Order 11246 does not provide for a private cause of action. The court further dismissed other federal and constitutional claims, concluding it lacked jurisdiction for state law claims.

Employment DiscriminationJob Offer WithdrawalPreliminary InjunctionMotion to DismissTitle VIIEqual Pay ActExecutive Order 11246Constitutional RightsStandingConfidentiality Agreement
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Forrence Orchards, Inc.

Appellants, apple growers, were assessed additional contributions under the New York Unemployment Insurance Law for wages paid to temporary alien farm workers. They argued that Federal law, specifically the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, preempts the State from requiring such contributions, as Federal law excludes these workers from unemployment tax. An Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the assessment. The court rejected the appellants' preemption argument, holding that the Federal Unemployment Tax Act does not prevent New York State from requiring contributions, and that a State Legislature is not required to conform its definition of 'employment' to the Federal scheme. The court affirmed the board's decision.

Unemployment InsuranceAlien Farm WorkersAgricultural LaborFederal PreemptionState LawLabor LawImmigration LawStatutory InterpretationEmployer ContributionsTax Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dziedzic v. Orchard Park Central School District

A kindergarten teacher died in an automobile accident while traveling to school after purchasing classroom supplies. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that her death arose out of and in the course of her employment, granting death benefits. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing that travel to and from work is not compensable. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, applying the "special errand" exception. It found substantial evidence that the employer encouraged and benefited from teachers purchasing materials outside school, distinguishing it from cases where the employer provided the items. The court concluded that neither lack of prior knowledge of the specific errand nor the completion of the errand before the accident precluded the application of the special errand exception.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Errand ExceptionCourse of EmploymentAutomobile AccidentTeacherClassroom SuppliesEmployer BenefitEncouragementCompensabilityDeath Benefits
References
4
Case No. ADJ7981326
Regular
Feb 11, 2014

ALFONSO MUNOZ vs. THIARA BROTHERS ORCHARDS, SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a farm laborer who sustained a left ankle injury at work. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify that temporary disability benefits are subject to the 104-week limit under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2). They also corrected a clerical error regarding the start date of temporary disability. The Board otherwise affirmed the original award for temporary disability indemnity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary DisabilityLabor Code section 4656(c)(2)Labor Code section 5814Labor Code section 5813Farm LaborerLeft Ankle InjuryAgreed Medical Examiner
References
0
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06233
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Wright v. Pennings

The plaintiff, Brian P. Wright, sustained personal injuries when an unsecured 20-foot extension ladder fell and struck him while a coworker was installing wiring. The ladder slipped on a rubber mat covered in cow manure and hay. The plaintiff commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, finding the plaintiff established prima facie that the unsecured ladder violated Labor Law § 240 (1) and proximately caused his injuries. The court also found the defendant failed to establish prima facie entitlement to dismissal of the Labor Law §§ 241 (6) and 200 claims, and the common-law negligence claim.

Personal InjuryLabor LawLadder AccidentWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseElevation-Related RiskIndustrial CodeNegligence
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 12 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