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. ADJ 7238353
Regular
Apr 13, 2012

ARTHUR CANNON vs. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a January 24, 2012 decision in the case of Arthur Cannon vs. City of Sacramento. The WCAB determined that reconsideration was necessary due to statutory time constraints and an initial review of the record. This action will allow for further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future communications regarding this case must be filed in writing with the Office of the Commissioners.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemCity of SacramentoArthur CannonStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decision
References
0
Case No. ADJ7238353
Regular
Dec 10, 2012

Arthur Cannon vs. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to review the denial of permanent disability for Arthur Cannon, a police officer injured in 2008. An Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) opined that while objective findings were minimal, the applicant's heel pain justified a 7% Whole Person Impairment rating by analogy to gait derangement. The WCAB found the AME's analogy was permissible under *Almaraz/Guzman* to address impairments not specifically covered by the AMA Guides, thus rescinding the original award. The dissenting opinion argued there was no objective evidence of impairment in earning capacity, normal member use, or competitive handicap, and therefore no basis for the rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardArthur CannonCity of SacramentoReconsiderationPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleAgreed Medical ExaminerAMA GuidesWhole Person ImpairmentPlantar FasciitisGait Derangement
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 1991

Arthurs v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Catherine Arthurs sued Metropolitan Life Insurance Company for accidental death benefits following her husband Raymond Arthurs' death, which she attributed to strenuous work in a hot vault. Metropolitan denied benefits, citing Raymond's pre-existing coronary arteriosclerosis. The court determined that Metropolitan's benefit denial must undergo a de novo review under ERISA federal common law, rejecting the insurer's claim of discretionary authority given the plan's wording. Finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the causal relationship between Mr. Arthurs' heart condition and his death, the District Court denied Metropolitan's motion for summary judgment.

ERISAAccidental Death BenefitsSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewDiscretionary AuthorityPre-existing ConditionCoronary ArteriosclerosisCausationWorkers' CompensationInsurance Contract
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 1989

Cannon v. Putnam

This case examines the scope of the dwelling-owner exemption under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241, which exempts owners of one and two-family dwellings who do not direct or control the work from certain safety duties. Defendant Albert Putnam owned a property with both residential and commercial uses. Plaintiff Robert Cannon was injured while installing a floodlight for aesthetic purposes related to Putnam's residence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decision, holding that the exemption applies when the commercial activities are housed in separate structures, and the work is unrelated to those commercial structures, focusing on the 'site and purpose of the work.' The court also found that Putnam did not direct or control the work.

Dwelling-owner exemptionLabor Law liabilitystatutory interpretationowner controlresidential propertycommercial propertyconstruction accidentpersonal injurynondelegable dutysite and purpose test
References
5
Case No. 702991/18
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2026

Cannon v. H&L Contr., LLC

The plaintiff, James Cannon, sued H & L Contracting, LLC for personal injuries sustained in two separate incidents in January 2018 while working on a project to repair the fender system of the Whitestone Bridge. The first incident involved slipping from an excavator step into a hole on a crane mat on a barge. The second incident occurred when the plaintiff allegedly fell while crossing a gap between a concrete pile cap and the shore after disembarking the barge. The Supreme Court denied both the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision regarding the defendant's motion, granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint for both incidents. The court found that the defendant's liability for the first incident fell under its role as employer, not vessel owner, under the LHWCA, and for the second incident, the injury occurred on an extension of land, not an appurtenance of the vessel. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLongshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation ActVessel NegligenceEmployer LiabilityDual-Capacity DefendantAdmiralty LawMaritime LawAppellate ReviewWorker Safety
References
11
Case No. CA 12-00803
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2013

TOWN OF AMHERST v. HILGER, ARTHUR

The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified a judgment by the Supreme Court, Erie County, in a case involving the Town of Amherst and Granite State Insurance Company against Arthur Hilger and Sally Bisher. The dispute arose from the defendants' refusal, as former officers of McGonigle and Hill Roofing, Inc. (M&H), to seek insurance coverage from the New York State Insurance Fund (SIF) for a judgment the Town held against M&H. While the Supreme Court granted plaintiffs a substantial money judgment, the Appellate Division concluded that the plaintiffs' legal theories regarding Business Corporation Law violations and breach of fiduciary duty lacked merit. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion in its entirety. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court to join M&H as a necessary party and convert the action into a special proceeding under Business Corporation Law § 1008, empowering the court to compel M&H to seek coverage from SIF.

Workers' CompensationIndemnificationBusiness Corporation LawFiduciary DutyCorporate DissolutionInsurance CoverageSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRemittalNecessary Parties
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Molyneux v. Arthur Guinness & Sons, P.L.C.

Plaintiff John B. Molyneux commenced this action against defendant Arthur Guinness and Sons, P.L.C. (AGS) seeking severance pay, alleging violations of ERISA and breach of contract, following AGS's sale of a subsidiary where Molyneux was employed. AGS moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court dismissed the complaint, finding no federal question jurisdiction under ERISA, as Molyneux failed to demonstrate a qualifying 'plan' and because the alleged plan would primarily benefit non-resident aliens, thus falling outside ERISA's scope. Additionally, the court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the contract claim due to the involvement of British law, witnesses, and events. The court further concluded that the complaint failed to state an ERISA claim, as it did not allege arbitrary, fraudulent, or bad-faith actions by AGS in denying benefits.

ERISASeverance PayBreach of ContractSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionEmployee BenefitsSubsidiary SaleFiduciary DutyNon-Resident Aliens
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Axel Johnson, Inc. v. Arthur Andersen & Co.

Axel Johnson, Inc. moved under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) for relief from the dismissal of its securities fraud complaint against Arthur Andersen & Co. The complaint was dismissed as time-barred under the Supreme Court's *Lampf* decision, which established a new retroactive statute of limitations. Johnson's motion is predicated on the newly enacted § 27A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which purports to 'undo' *Lampf*'s retroactive application. Arthur Andersen opposed, arguing § 27A violates the separation of powers doctrine and is unconstitutional. The court granted Johnson's motion, finding § 27A constitutional as it established a new and generally applicable rule for pre-existing cases, thereby not constituting an impermissible legislative reversal of a judicial decision. As a result, both Johnson's federal and related state claims were reinstated.

Securities FraudStatute of LimitationsRetroactive ApplicationSeparation of PowersDue ProcessVested RightsRule 60(b)Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991Section 27APendent Jurisdiction
References
19
Case No. 08-cv-3546 (ADS)(WDW)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2011

Smith v. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD DEPT. OF SANITATION

This civil rights case was brought by three African-American employees, Leo Smith, Jr., Benjamin Cannon, Jr., and John Christopher Smith, against the Town of Hempstead Department of Sanitation Sanitary District No. 2 and several individual defendants. Plaintiffs alleged a hostile work environment based on a noose incident and subsequent retaliation for filing EEOC complaints. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims against the Sanitary District, Robert Noble, Michael McDermott, and Nicholas Dionisio, citing triable issues of fact regarding the severity of the environment and the adequacy of the employer's remedial actions. However, summary judgment was granted for defendant John Beyer and the Board of Commissioners on these claims. Retaliation claims by John Smith and Benjamin Cannon were dismissed, but Leo Smith's retaliation claim against Michael McDermott and the Sanitary District was allowed to proceed. All claims of conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 were dismissed due to lack of evidence of agreement and the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRacial DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentCivil RightsTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983New York State Human Rights LawIntracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2008

Forschner v. Jucca Co.

Arthur Forschner, an injured plaintiff, fell from a beam at a construction site in Putnam County after a ladder he was using was removed. He brought an action seeking damages for personal injuries against Jucca Company, a partnership, Frank Castagna, Castagna Realty Co., Inc., Rita Castagna, Catherine Castagna LaBianca, and Robert Ronzoni, alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order, finding triable issues of fact regarding the provision and use of safety devices for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and concluding that the Industrial Code provisions cited for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim were inapplicable to the facts of the case.

personal injuryconstruction accidentLabor Lawsummary judgmentelevation hazardsafety devicesproximate causeappellate reviewIndustrial Code
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 140 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