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. CA 14-01267
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2015

CARR, DANIEL v. MCHUGH PAINTING CO., INC.

Plaintiffs Daniel and Susan Carr initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action after Daniel Carr, a carpenter employed by a subcontractor, sustained a back injury while installing a door from a scissor lift at a renovation site. The Supreme Court denied the general contractor, McHugh Painting Co., Inc.'s, motion for summary judgment and partially granted plaintiffs' cross-motion under Labor Law § 240 (1), allowing an amendment for a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order. It granted McHugh Painting Co., Inc.'s motion in part, dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against it, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion in its entirety. The court determined that Daniel Carr's injury was not an elevation-related hazard covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the proposed Industrial Code violation for Labor Law § 241 (6) lacked merit.

Labor LawConstruction SafetyPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewScissor Lift AccidentElevation-Related HazardCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial Code ViolationGeneral Contractor Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2014

Carr v. McHugh Painting Co.

Daniel Carr, a carpenter employed by a subcontractor, suffered a back injury while installing a heavy door from a scissor lift at an elevated height during a renovation project, leading him and other plaintiffs to sue the general contractor, McHugh Painting Co., Inc., under Labor Law and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant's summary judgment motion but granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) and allowed amendment for an Industrial Code violation claim. On appeal, the order was modified; the appellate court dismissed the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against the defendant, ruling that Carr's injury was not caused by an elevation-related hazard falling within the scope of § 240 (1) and the alleged Industrial Code violation was factually inapplicable. However, the court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion regarding the Labor Law § 200 claim and common-law negligence, concluding that the defendant did not prove the risk was inherent in the work and had exercised supervisory control over the work methods. Consequently, the case was partially affirmed and partially dismissed on specific claims.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjurySafe Place to WorkGeneral Contractor LiabilityIndustrial Code ViolationElevation-Related HazardCommon-Law Negligence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 1978

Claim of Carr v. Woods

Claimant Cecil M. Carr sustained a back injury after falling from a ladder while painting a home owned by Ann M. Woods. Woods initially classified Carr as an 'Independent Laborer,' but he filed a compensation claim, leading to a dispute over his employment status. Evidence showed Carr worked for Woods as a handyman for two decades across multiple properties, furnishing his own tools and being paid hourly, though no taxes were withheld. Despite these factors, the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a referee's decision, finding an employer-employee relationship existed due to Woods's significant control and direction over Carr's work, including the right to assign tasks and terminate employment. The board's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorScope of EmploymentControl TestSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLabor LawBack InjuryEmployment Status
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2001

Carr v. WestLB Administration, Inc.

Plaintiff Arlen Carr sued his employer, WestLB Administration, alleging age and religious discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. WestLB moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted WestLB's motion for summary judgment on the age discrimination, retaliation, and emotional distress claims, finding Carr failed to establish a prima facie case for age discrimination and retaliation, and the emotional distress claims were legally barred. Carr voluntarily withdrew his religious discrimination claims, which were then dismissed with prejudice. Therefore, the court entered summary judgment in favor of WestLB on all counts.

Age DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPrima Facie CaseEmotional DistressADEANYSHRLTitle VII
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carr v. New York State Department of Transportation

Petitioner James Carr, a Highway Maintenance Worker I, was terminated by the Department of Transportation after his commercial driver's license (CDL) was revoked due to an off-duty alcohol-related driving offense. A CDL was a minimum qualification for his position under Civil Service Law § 118 (2) (a). Carr and his union, Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., challenged the termination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging it was arbitrary and capricious, violated due process, and failed to adhere to collective bargaining agreement (CBA) disciplinary procedures. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, which the appellate court affirmed. The court distinguished between termination for misconduct, subject to CBA disciplinary action, and termination for lacking a minimum job qualification, which is not. Given that Carr's termination stemmed from failing to meet a fundamental job requirement, unrelated to job performance or misconduct, the CBA's disciplinary provisions were inapplicable, and his due process rights were upheld as he received notice and an opportunity to respond.

Employment terminationCommercial Driver's LicenseOff-duty conductMinimum qualificationsCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementDue processCPLR article 78Appellate reviewPublic employment
References
5
Case No. Index No. 101332/19, Appeal No. 14059-14059A, Case No. 2021-00016, 2021-00476
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2021

Matter of Carr v. De Blasio

This case involves an appeal concerning a summary inquiry into alleged violations and neglect of duty by New York City officials related to the fatal arrest of Eric Garner. The Supreme Court had granted a petition for this inquiry, and the Appellate Division affirmed that decision. The court found that the issues were significant, that there was a lack of substantial public investigation and explanation, and that the inquiry did not violate the separation of powers doctrine. The ruling emphasized the exceptional nature of such an inquiry, warranted in this rare instance of profound public importance.

Summary InquiryPolice MisconductEric GarnerChokeholdExcessive ForceTransparencyNew York City CharterSeparation of PowersJudicial DiscretionNYPD
References
26
Case No. ADJ7756156
Regular
May 19, 2015

SYLVESTER CARR vs. LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, York Insurance

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order dismisses a Petition for Removal filed by Sylvester Carr. The dismissal is due to the petitioner's withdrawal of the petition. The original decision being appealed was issued on April 20, 2015.

Petition for RemovalDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermissibly Self InsuredAdministeredVan Nuys District OfficeApril 20 2015May 19 2015Edwin Haronian
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2016

Massi v. 198 Chelsea Corp.

This action, brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), concerns a settlement agreement reached between plaintiff Carr Massi and defendants 198 Chelsea Corp. and Shigemitsu New York, Inc. The parties submitted a Stipulation of Settlement and Order, detailing accessibility alterations and cash payments. The Court reviewed the stipulation and identified several ambiguities regarding its execution, the retention of jurisdiction, remedies for breach, and the absence of party signatures. Citing these ambiguities and its lack of involvement in brokering the private settlement, the Court declined to retain jurisdiction for settlement enforcement. Consequently, the Court extended the deadline for the parties to submit a stipulation of dismissal or apply to reopen the action, with a conditional dismissal without prejudice if no timely action is taken.

Americans with Disabilities ActSettlement AgreementJurisdictionDismissal Without PrejudiceEnforcement of SettlementMagistrate JudgeContract InterpretationAmbiguityFederal CourtCivil Procedure
References
6
Case No. ADJ4166687 (AHM 0046295) ADJ1681006 (AHM 0088073)
Regular
Jun 13, 2014

GINA NEVARES vs. McMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY, TIG/ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves Gina Nevares as the applicant against McMaster-Carr Supply Company and its insurers. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) considered a Petition for Removal filed in this matter. The WCAB adopted the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge and ordered the Petition for Removal dismissed. The dismissal is based on the WCJ's report, which is incorporated by reference.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportDismissalGina NevaresMcMaster-Carr Supply CompanyTIG/Zenith Insurance CompanyZurich North AmericaADJ4166687ADJ1681006
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 1994

In re Shurtleff

This case involves an objection filed by Wesley Carr, a judgment creditor, against the exemptions claimed by Paul C. and Joyce E. Shurtleff (Debtors) in their Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Carr also sought to terminate the automatic stay and have the trustee abandon the property. The Debtors claimed exemptions for funds in a checking account and milk proceeds, arguing they were exempt worker's compensation payments and wages. The Court determined that while Carr held a judicial lien on the accounts, the Debtors retained an interest and the ability to avoid the lien under bankruptcy code sections. Consequently, the Court denied Carr's objection to the exemptions and denied his motions without prejudice, allowing the Debtors 30 days to file a motion to avoid the liens.

BankruptcyExemptionsAutomatic StayJudicial LiensLien AvoidanceChapter 7New York LawProperty of EstateGarnishmentJudgment Creditor
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 24 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