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. 2021 NY Slip Op 04611 [197 AD3d 474]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2021

Navarra v. Hannon

Plaintiff Thomas Navarra, a laborer, sustained personal injuries while working at a single-family home owned by defendant Maura Hannon following Hurricane Sandy. Navarra brought suit alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) against Hannon and other contractors, Joseph Petruzza and JNF Mechanical, and Alexander Sabke and Alex's Electrical Maintenance Corp. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment, dismissing the negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) claims against all defendants. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that the contractors lacked supervisory control over Navarra's work, and Hannon was protected by the homeowner's exemption, as she did not direct or control the specific methods of the work performed.

Personal InjuryLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentHomeowner ExemptionConstruction AccidentSupervisory ControlAppellate ReviewNegligenceDuty to Provide Safe Workplace
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2005

Albert v. Williams Lubricants, Inc.

Plaintiff Charles J. Albert, Jr. was injured in December 1997 when a ladder slid while he was installing lubrication equipment at a dealership owned by Northgate Ford, Inc., for which his employer, Midstate Fuel Storage Systems, was contracted by Williams Lubricants, Inc. Albert and his wife sued alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), § 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law § 200 claim and Northgate's cross-claim for indemnification but denied dismissal of claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The appellate court found that the plaintiff's misuse of the ladder, which was deemed an adequate safety device, was the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thus reversing the lower court's partial denial of summary judgment for the defendants. Consequently, all claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 241 (6), and common-law negligence were dismissed, and the lower court's decision was modified and affirmed.

Ladder AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor LawProximate CauseMisuse of EquipmentConstruction SafetyIndemnificationAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. CV-24-1475
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of Albert Belcher

Claimant Albert Belcher, a security director, sustained a work-related back injury. Following his retirement, he engaged in a private investigation business but failed to disclose this activity during medical examinations related to his workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a due to material misrepresentation and imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties, including permanent disqualification from indemnity benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. On appeal, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the finding of a § 114-a violation, citing substantial evidence. However, it reversed the discretionary penalty of permanent disqualification, deeming it disproportionate given that the claimant eventually disclosed his work activities to the Board and cooperated during hearings.

Workers' Compensation LawMisrepresentationFraudDisability BenefitsDisqualificationWage ReplacementAppellate ReviewDue ProcessIndependent Medical ExaminationTreating Physician
References
28
Case No. 533181
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Albert Olszewski

Claimant Albert Olszewski filed two workers' compensation claims in 2017 and 2018. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed both. Claimant filed a single application for review, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied review of the 2017 claim because a separate copy of the application was not submitted for that claim, citing Subject No. 046-1106. The Board, however, reversed the WCLJ's decision on the 2018 claim. Claimant appealed the denial of review for the 2017 claim. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, found that the Board abused its discretion by denying review based on a procedural requirement (separate forms for multiple claims) not explicitly stated in the form instructions or regulations, and where the referenced penalty in Subject No. 046-1106 involved cost assessment, not denial of review. The court modified the Board's decision, reversing the denial of review for the 2017 claim and remitting the matter to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionProcedural ErrorForm RB-89Multiple ClaimsSubject No. 046-1106Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aAbuse of DiscretionRemittal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rea v. Albert Elia Building Co.

Plaintiff Philip John Rea, a welder, sustained serious injuries when a scaffold rope parted, causing him to fall while working on a sewage treatment plant. He and his wife (plaintiffs) moved for partial summary judgment, arguing absolute liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and (3). The defendant, Albert Elia Building Company, Inc., submitted an attorney's affidavit that did not dispute the plaintiffs' account of the accident or the cause. The court found no factual issues on liability, affirming the defendant's absolute duty under the statute which cannot be avoided by claims of plaintiff's fault or defendant's lack of fault. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order and granted the motion for partial summary judgment.

Scaffold AccidentAbsolute LiabilityLabor LawPartial Summary JudgmentWelder InjuryConstruction AccidentSubcontractor LiabilityWorker SafetyStatutory DutyPersonal Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Albert F. v. Stone

Albert F., a patient at Kings Park Psychiatric Center, filed a CPLR Article 78 proceeding to compel the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health and the Director of the Bureau of Forensic Services to apply for an order authorizing his unescorted furloughs. Albert F. argued that his treatment team, the Hospital Forensic Committee, and the Bureau of Forensic Services had all approved his furlough application based on clinical suitability and public safety. The respondents contended that the application was discretionary and that the Commissioner retained final authority. The court, presided over by Alan D. Oshrin, J., denied the respondents' motion to dismiss and the petitioner's motion to amend the petition. The court clarified that while the initial decision to apply for a furlough order is discretionary, if the Director of Forensic Services determines that two specific conditions (clinical warrant and public safety) are met, then the application becomes mandatory. The court ordered the petitioner to submit certified and updated documentary evidence to support their claims within 45 and 90 days, stating that if the conditions are met, the court will direct the Director to make the application.

MandamusCPLR Article 78Furlough OrderPsychiatric Patient RightsMental Hygiene LawDiscretionary vs Mandatory ActsStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawBureau of Forensic ServicesKings Park Psychiatric Center
References
15
Case No. ADJ8079940
Regular
Nov 01, 2012

SANTOS ALVARADO vs. AMERIPEC, INC., COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant's attorney, Albert A. Navarra, in the matter of Santos Alvarado v. Ameripex, Inc. The Board dismissed the petition because it was not properly served on all adverse parties, violating Labor Code section 5905. Even if properly served, the Board would have denied the petition on the merits based on the Workers' Compensation Judge's report. The Board also noted Mr. Navarra's history of rule violations in other cases, warning him of sanctions for future infractions.

Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5905service violationWCJ Report and Recommendationdeny on the meritsAlbert A. Navarrastate bar numberWCAB Rule 10845misrepresentation of recordWCAB Rule 10842
References
4
Case No. 527514
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Rossi v. Albert Pearlman Inc.

Claimant Nicholas Rossi appealed two decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board initially ruled that Rossi's myocardial infarction was not causally related to his work activities as a painter and denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits. Subsequently, the Board denied Rossi's application for reconsideration. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed both decisions, finding that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination. The court emphasized the Board's discretion in assessing the credibility of medical witnesses and its resolution of causation issues, crediting the opinion of a cardiologist who found no causal link between the infarction and work.

Myocardial Infarction ClaimCausation DisputeMedical Expert OpinionIndependent Medical ExaminationBoard Decision AffirmationAppellate ReviewCredibility of Medical WitnessesSubstantial Evidence StandardOccupational InjuryCardiovascular Disease
References
11
Case No. ADJ7505520
Regular
Jul 01, 2014

ALBERT LOBO vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNADINO

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board amended a prior award concerning applicant Albert Lobo's industrial injury. The Board clarified that applicant is entitled to home health care services, including reimbursement for caregiver Halimah Shenghur. However, specific issues regarding the commencement date of liability and reimbursement for certain other individuals are deferred for further development of the record. The Board affirmed the entitlement to services based on a physician's prescription and the caregiver's extensive documented care, while emphasizing the employer's duty to investigate and provide benefits promptly.

Industrial injurybilateral upper extremitiesbilateral lower extremitiesinternal systemsself-procured medical treatmentcaregiver serviceshome health care serviceshome modificationsNeri Hernandezprescription requirement
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Albert Lindley Lee Memorial Hospital

This Memorandum-Decision and Order addresses an objection to a priority claim filed by the New York State Department of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Division, against The Albert Lindley Lee Memorial Hospital, a Debtor in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The claim, number 179, seeks priority status for reimbursement of unemployment insurance compensation benefits paid to the Debtor's former employees. The Debtor contended that these "payments in lieu of contributions" were not taxes and should be treated as general unsecured claims, while the State argued for priority under Bankruptcy Code section 507(a)(8)(D) or (E). Applying the Lorber test, the court determined that the reimbursement liability constitutes a "tax" due to its involuntary, public-purpose nature imposed under state power, and it met additional criteria of universal applicability without disadvantaging private creditors. Consequently, the Debtor's objection was overruled, and the Claim was allowed as a priority excise tax claim under 11 U.S.C. section 507(a)(8)(E).

BankruptcyPriority ClaimUnemployment InsuranceExcise TaxEmployment TaxNonprofit OrganizationState ClaimDebtor ObjectionSection 507(a)(8)(E)Lorber Test
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 77 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