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

Hall v. Environmental Chemical Corp.

Plaintiff Hall originally sued Defendant Environmental Chemical Corp. for personal injuries under the Jones Act and general maritime law, which were dismissed via summary judgment. Plaintiff then moved to alter judgment, amend the complaint to include LHWCA Section 905(b) and negligence claims, and for a new trial. The Court denied relief under LHWCA Section 905(b), ruling the craft was not a vessel for such purposes, and also denied the motion for a new trial. However, the Court granted leave for Plaintiff to amend the complaint to pursue a general negligence claim, converting the final judgment into a partial summary judgment. Defendant's motion for sanctions was denied.

Jones ActGeneral Maritime LawLHWCA Section 905(b)Vessel DefinitionSummary JudgmentMotion to Alter JudgmentMotion for Leave to AmendMotion for New TrialMotion for SanctionsNegligence Claim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Integrated Construction Services, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance

Integrated Construction Services, Inc. (Integrated) purchased a commercial general liability policy from Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale). Integrated received delayed and initially incorrect notifications about a worker's injury. After clarifying details, Integrated notified Scottsdale, which denied coverage citing late notice. Integrated then filed a declaratory judgment action to compel Scottsdale to defend and indemnify it. Scottsdale's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the order denying dismissal was affirmed, as Integrated adequately pleaded reasonable delay and Scottsdale's documentary evidence was insufficient to refute the claim.

Commercial General LiabilityInsurance PolicyDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyLate NoticeDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(1)CPLR 3211(a)(7)Documentary Evidence
References
10
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06061 [165 AD3d 117]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2018

Mananghaya v. Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. Ctr.

Decedent Tristan Michael Mananghaya was killed while disconnecting a rented chiller from Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center's air conditioning system. Plaintiffs, Mananghaya's wife and children, sought damages under Labor Law § 240 (1). The primary issue on appeal was whether the work performed constituted an 'alteration' under the statute. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the motion court's decision, finding that the complex process of integrating and de-integrating the chiller, which significantly affected the hospital's crucial building-wide cooling system, indeed qualified as an alteration. The court emphasized that a change in structural integrity is not always required for Labor Law § 240 (1) coverage, especially when a significant building system's function is altered. Consequently, plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was granted, and defendants' motions for dismissal were denied.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Alteration of structureConstruction accidentFalling objectSummary judgmentAppellate reviewChiller installationAir conditioning systemIndustrial accidentWorker fatality
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2017

Byrge ex rel. Estate v. Premium Coal Co.

Reddin Byrge's widow, as the plaintiff, initiated a lawsuit to enforce a 20% additional compensation on overdue black lung benefits against Premium Coal Company, Inc. Reddin Byrge had been awarded black lung benefits by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in January 2013, with the order becoming effective upon filing in February 2013. Despite this, Premium Coal Company appealed the decision through various levels without obtaining a stay of payment, failing to make timely benefit payments. The Black Lung Disability Trust Fund covered interim payments during this period. The plaintiff argued that, according to 33 U.S.C. § 914(f) and 20 C.F.R. § 725.607, the defendants were liable for the 20% additional compensation and interest due to their failure to pay benefits within ten days of them becoming due. The defendants contended that the Longshore Act's penalty provision should not apply to black lung claims, arguing it was punitive, untimely, and that the Department of Labor's regulations were an unlawful departure from the statute. The Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the ALJ's order was effective in February 2013, creating an immediate payment obligation, and that the additional compensation and interest were automatically incurred due to the defendants' non-compliance and lack of a stay. Subsequently, the Court denied the defendants' motion to alter or amend the judgment, reaffirming its prior findings and reasoning.

Black Lung Benefits ActLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActSummary JudgmentAdditional CompensationInterest CalculationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Law Judge DecisionBenefits Review BoardSixth Circuit Court of AppealsTimely Payment
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

First Tech. Capital, Inc. v. Airborne, Inc.

Plaintiff First Technology Capital, Inc. initiated an action against Airborne, Inc. d/b/a/ Firstflight for breach of contract. After a series of court decisions, including a vacatur by the Second Circuit and a subsequent default judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the case was closed. The plaintiff then filed a motion to alter the judgment, seeking to remove the language that closed the case to facilitate post-judgment discovery. The court denied this motion, clarifying that reopening the case is unnecessary for a judgment creditor to pursue post-judgment discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2), as courts retain ancillary jurisdiction to enforce judgments.

Post-judgment discoveryFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 69Ancillary jurisdictionJudgment enforcementMotion to alter judgmentCase closureJudgment creditorDistrict Court ProcedureDiscovery scopeWestern District of New York
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2005

Roberson v. Game Stop, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Gamestop, alleged demotion and eventual termination due to racial discrimination, FMLA violations, and retaliation after taking leave for her son and later breaking her foot. She claimed denial of necessary computer training and discriminatory treatment compared to a white co-worker, Stephanie McKee. The Defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding insufficient evidence for racial discrimination, lack of standing for FMLA claims due to no tangible lost benefits, and no causal link for the retaliation claims under Title VII or the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act. Plaintiff's subsequent motion to alter or amend the judgment regarding her demotion claims was reconsidered but ultimately denied, affirming the original summary judgment.

DiscriminationRetaliationFMLASummary JudgmentDemotionRace DiscriminationWorker's Compensation ActEmployment LawTitle VIISection 1981
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Horkins

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court addressed West End Terrace, Inc.'s (WETI) motion for summary judgment regarding a debtor in possession's objection to WETI's claim. The court granted summary judgment for WETI, ruling that the debtor's claims of fraud in condominium sales were barred by res judicata due to prior state court judgments. Additionally, the court rejected claims of irregularities in foreclosure sales, citing insufficient evidence from the debtor and non-compliance with discovery rules. Later, the court denied the debtor's motion to alter or amend the summary judgment, reiterating its prior findings and emphasizing the debtor's failure to meet Rule 56(f) requirements for further discovery.

BankruptcySummary JudgmentRes JudicataForeclosure SalesAutomatic Stay ViolationDebtor in PossessionClaim ObjectionFraud AllegationsCondominium SalesFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2011

Saldivar v. Lawrence Development Realty, LLC

Angel Saldivar was injured in a scaffold collapse while working for JMK Construction Management, Inc., leading him and his wife to sue Lawrence Development Realty, LLC (LDR) for personal injuries, alleging a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation. Initially, the Supreme Court denied their summary judgment motion and granted LDR's cross-motion, which contended an alter ego defense under Workers’ Compensation Law. However, upon reargument, the court reversed its decision, granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability and denying LDR's cross-motion. LDR appealed this reargument order, but the appellate court affirmed, concluding that LDR was not an alter ego of JMK. The appellate court further held that the scaffold's collapse established LDR's liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), as it failed to provide proper protection to the injured plaintiff.

Personal InjuryScaffold CollapseLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentReargumentAlter Ego DefenseWorkers Compensation LawAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentPremises Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Joblon v. Solow

Richard Joblon, an electrician, sustained injuries from a ladder fall while installing a wall clock at a property owned by Sheldon H. Solow and leased by Avon Products, Inc., while employed by Geller Electric. The Joblons filed a lawsuit alleging negligence under New York Labor Law Section 240(1), leading to multiple summary judgment motions from all parties concerning the statute's applicability, special employee status, and contractual indemnification. The District Court denied the Joblons' motion, ruling that the installation of a wall clock did not constitute 'altering' or 'repairing' a building under Section 240(1), and thus granted Geller's motion on that issue. Furthermore, the court denied Geller's motion regarding special employee status and Avon's indemnification claim against Geller due to unresolved factual disputes. However, Solow's motion for indemnification against Avon was granted based on a lease agreement, while his claim against Geller was denied.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Ladder AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnificationSpecial EmployeeConstruction vs. MaintenancePremises LiabilityEmployer LiabilityTenant IndemnityPersonal Injury
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cantu v. Milberger Landscaping, Inc.

The case concerns a collective action brought by landscaping laborers (Plaintiffs) against their employer, Milberger Landscaping, Inc., for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The central issue was the compensability of travel time and work performed at the company yard before and after job sites. The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion in part, ruling that the afternoon travel time back to the yard is compensable as a matter of law due to integral tasks performed upon return. However, it denied the Plaintiffs' motion regarding willfulness, stating that failure to seek legal advice alone does not prove a willful violation. Additionally, material fact questions regarding the accuracy of timekeeping records and the extent of uncompensated morning and afternoon work led to the denial of the Defendant's motion and the remaining aspects of the Plaintiffs' motion.

FLSAovertime wagesPortal-to-Portal Actcollective actionsummary judgmentcompensable travel timewillful violationtimekeeping recordslandscape laborersintegral and indispensable activities
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 14,042 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