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. 2015 NY Slip Op 01380 [125 AD3d 480]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2015

DaSilva v. Haks Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors

Plaintiff Paulo DaSilva, a construction worker, was injured after falling from a scaffold while working on the Croton Falls Dam project. He brought an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against Haks Engineers, Architects and Land Surveyors, P.C., Earth Tech Northeast, Inc., and Haks Et Joint Venture, who were construction managers for the project. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that under their construction management services contract, defendants did not have supervisory control over the construction methods and were not statutory agents for liability under the Labor Law sections. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, stating that general supervisory duties were insufficient for liability and that plaintiff failed to present evidentiary support to contradict the contract terms or suggest that further discovery would yield relevant evidence.

Construction AccidentScaffold FallSummary JudgmentSupervisory ControlStatutory AgentConstruction Manager LiabilityAppellate DivisionFirst DepartmentLabor LawWorkplace Safety
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04540 [230 AD3d 1286]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2024

Chavarria v. Bruce Nagel & Partners Architects, P.C.

Jose Chavarria, an employee, sustained personal injuries on a renovation project and initiated an action against Bruce Nagel & Partners Architects, P.C. (Nagel, P.C.) and David L. Wasserman and Ellen F. Wasserman (the Wassermans). Nagel, P.C. had a contract with the Wassermans for architectural services, which included a provision requiring the Wassermans to ensure Nagel, P.C. was an additional insured on the general contractor's liability policy, regardless of whether construction administration services were regular or ad hoc. Despite an addendum modifying the frequency of services, the insurance requirement remained. Following Chavarria's injury, Nagel, P.C. moved for summary judgment to dismiss Chavarria's complaint and on its cross-claim for breach of contract against the Wassermans. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting Nagel, P.C.'s motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the complaint against Nagel, P.C. and finding the Wassermans liable for breach of contract.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractCross-ClaimsAppellate ReviewConstruction Administration ServicesGeneral Liability InsuranceAdditional Insured ClauseLabor LawSafe WorkplaceContract Interpretation
References
18
Case No. 03-09-00518-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2011

Black + Vernooy Architects, J. Sinclair Black, and D. Andrew Vernooy v. Lou Ann Smith Jimmy Jackson Smith, Individually and as Next Friend of Rachel and Grayson Smith And Karen E. Graveley

Appellees Lou Ann Smith and Karen E. Gravely sustained severe injuries, including paraplegia for Lou Ann, when a balcony designed by Black + Vernooy Architects (Appellants) collapsed due to construction defects. The Smiths sued the Architects for negligence, and a jury found them partially responsible. On appeal, the Court reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the Architects owed no contractual or common law duty to the Smiths as third-party visitors to the home. The Court emphasized that the Architects' contract with the homeowners, the Maxfields, explicitly disavowed third-party beneficiaries and limited the Architects' oversight role without granting control over construction methods. The Court declined to create a new common law duty for architects under these circumstances, citing the significant burden and the availability of recourse against the general contractor and subcontractor.

NegligenceArchitect LiabilityContractual DutyCommon Law DutyThird-Party BeneficiaryBalcony CollapseConstruction DefectsProportional ResponsibilityTexas Court of AppealsDuty of Care
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diocese of Rochester v. R-Monde Contractors, Inc.

This case addresses whether an architect, allegedly failing to make adequate periodic inspections and learn of defects, is immune from liability due to a contract provision disclaiming responsibility for the contractor's acts. Plaintiffs, the Diocese of Rochester and St. Theodore’s Church, sued their architect, Starks Wurzer Patterson Romeo Architects, P.C., and others after a fire caused by faulty insulation installation. The architect moved for summary judgment, arguing their contract absolved them of supervisory duties and responsibility for the contractor's methods. The court denied the architect's motion for summary judgment, except for the breach of warranty claims (which were dismissed), holding that the exculpatory clause did not immunize the architect from liability for breaches of its own contractual duties to inspect and inform the owner, rejecting the argument that lack of knowledge due to insufficient inspection could be a defense.

architect liabilitysummary judgment motionbreach of contractnegligenceexculpatory clauseconstruction defectsfire damageinsulation installationduty to inspectcontract interpretation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Black + Vernooy Architects v. Smith

Lou Ann Smith, Jimmy Jackson Smith (individually and as next friend of Rachel and Grayson Smith), and Karen E. Gravely (collectively, the Smiths) sued Black -l- Vernooy Architects, J. Sinclair Black, and D. Andrew Vernooy (collectively, the Architects) for negligence after a second-floor balcony designed by the Architects collapsed, causing severe injuries. The Architects had designed a vacation home for Robert and Kathy Maxfield. The general contractor, Nash Builders, Inc., hired subcontractor Steven Rodriguez, who built the balcony with significant deviations from the design drawings. A jury found the Architects 10% responsible, the general contractor 70%, and the subcontractor 20%. The district court entered judgment for the Smith family against the Architects. The appellate court reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the Architects owed no duty, either contractually or under common law, to the Smiths as third-party visitors. The contract explicitly disavowed third-party beneficiaries and limited the Architects' control over construction methods, concluding that creating such a new common law duty was beyond its purview.

Architectural NegligenceThird-Party LiabilityContractual DutyCommon Law DutyDuty of CareConstruction DefectsBalcony CollapseForeseeability of InjuryRight to ControlAppellate Reversal
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anzaldua v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co.

This worker's compensation case involves an appeal by Esther Anzaldua against American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, the compensation carrier. Anzaldua was injured on the job and sued after rejecting an award from the Texas Industrial Accident Board. A jury awarded her damages for partial incapacity and medical expenses, but Anzaldua appealed, alleging the medical award was insufficient, that certain medical reports were improperly admitted due to hearsay, and that a supplemental jury charge was coercive. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the jury's verdict supported by evidence, the medical reports properly admitted, and the supplemental charge not coercive.

Workers' CompensationMedical ExpensesJury VerdictEvidence AdmissibilitySupplemental Jury ChargeCoercionIncapacityAppealTexas LawInsurance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. White

Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Company appealed a worker’s compensation judgment concerning Ira Gillis White, who sustained a back injury. A jury found White totally incapacitated for three months and permanently partially incapacitated thereafter, establishing his weekly earning capacity at $150 during the partial incapacity period. Electric Mutual contended that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of White’s pre-injury wages and that the jury’s finding on earning capacity was unsupported or against the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, explaining that worker’s compensation aims to compensate for loss of earning capacity, not just actual wages, and that post-injury earnings do not conclusively prove capacity. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's assessment of White's diminished earning capacity, considering his pain and physical limitations despite continued employment.

Worker's CompensationIncapacityEarning CapacityBack InjuryHerniated DiscMedical EvidenceWage ExclusionJury FindingsAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 1990

Fullenwider v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co.

This is an appeal in a worker's compensation case. The plaintiff, Lucille Fullenwider, alleged she developed industrial asthma while working for Motorola, Inc., leading to total and permanent incapacity. The jury found she did not suffer an occupational injury, and the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company. The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in permitting two undisclosed expert witnesses to testify when interrogatories requesting their names were not supplemented thirty days prior to trial. The appellate court concluded that while the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony without a finding of good cause, the error was harmless as the plaintiff was not prejudiced, and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Expert Witness TestimonyDiscovery RulesGood Cause ExceptionTrial Court DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionHarmful ErrorWorker's CompensationIndustrial AsthmaOccupational InjuryUndisclosed Witnesses
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 5,157 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