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. SAC 288492, SAC 292655, SAC 305718
Regular
Aug 08, 2008

JUDY BRAMBLETT vs. RETIREMENT HOUSING FOUNDATION, AUBURN RAVINE TERRACE; REM

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration and rescinded the prior award. The Board returned the case to the trial level, deferring a decision on permanent disability pending the outcome of a related California Court of Appeal case, *Benson v. Permanente Medical Group*. This decision means the original findings regarding the applicant's permanent and stationary date and permanent disability percentages are now set aside.

BramblettRetirement Housing FoundationAuburn Ravine TerraceREMindustrial injurylow backpsychecumulative traumapermanent and stationarypermanent disability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 1989

Park Terrace Gardens, Inc. v. Bevona

This case concerns an appeal regarding the permanent stay of arbitration between Park Terrace Gardens, Inc. (petitioner) and 32B-32J Service Employees International Union (respondent). The Union sought arbitration over alleged workforce reduction and inadequate wages, claiming violations of collective bargaining agreements. Initially, the Supreme Court granted the petitioner's application to stay arbitration, citing improper notice and time-barred claims. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the union had waived notice requirements and that the wage claims were continuing violations. Consequently, the stay was vacated, and the matter was remanded for arbitration on both the workforce reduction and wage claims.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork Force ReductionWage ClaimsTimelinessStatute of LimitationsNotice of ArbitrationUnion DisputeAppellate DivisionContract Law
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04906 [186 AD3d 1298]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2020

Aguilar v. Graham Terrace, LLC

The plaintiff, Willan Enrique Macas Aguilar, an employee of subcontractor Atweek, Inc., sustained personal injuries when an unsecured HVAC duct fell on him during demolition work at a renovation site owned by Graham Terrace, LLC, and managed by general contractor Townhouse Builders, Inc. He initiated an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The owner and general contractor filed a third-party claim for contractual indemnification against the subcontractor. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and issued various rulings concerning the indemnification and other Labor Law claims. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order by denying the owner and general contractor's motion for summary judgment on the contractual indemnification claim, while affirming the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and the denial of summary judgment to the appellants on the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

personal injurylabor lawsummary judgmentcontractual indemnificationfalling objectconstruction accidentappellate reviewworker safetypremises liabilityNew York law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walsh v. City of Auburn

Plaintiff William W. Walsh, a former recycling administrator for the City of Auburn, commenced this civil rights action alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and First Amendment violations against the City and various public officials. Defendants filed motions to dismiss. The court granted dismissal for the New York State Division of Human Rights, the Auburn Civil Service Commission, and several individual municipal officials. All ADEA claims against individual defendants were dismissed, with the ADEA claim against the City of Auburn surviving. Additionally, First Amendment damages claims against individual defendants were barred by qualified immunity, but First Amendment claims against the City of Auburn and specific officials in their official capacities (LaLonde, Becker, Malone) were allowed to proceed. The court rejected the defendants' arguments that Walsh's ADEA claims were entirely barred by res judicata or failure to state a claim.

Age DiscriminationFirst AmendmentCivil RightsEmployment LawQualified ImmunityRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelMunicipal LiabilityPublic Employee SpeechMotion to Dismiss
References
52
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00739 [224 AD3d 475]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2024

Hasan v. Terrace Acquisitions II, LLC

This case addresses the retroactivity of the repeal of the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA). Plaintiff, representing the estate of a deceased nursing home resident, sued the defendant nursing home for negligence, gross negligence, and wrongful death related to COVID-19. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, which the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed. The court held that the repeal of the EDTPA, which previously granted immunity to healthcare facilities during the pandemic, was not retroactive. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to immunity for actions that occurred while the EDTPA was in effect. Additionally, the court found that the defendant successfully defended against the gross negligence claim, demonstrating preparatory steps to prevent infections and adherence to Department of Health policies.

Retroactivity of statute repealEmergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA)COVID-19 immunityNursing home liabilityGross negligence defenseStatutory interpretationPublic Health LawAppellate reviewWrongful death claimNegligence claim
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

James v. Terrace Tavern, LLC

Plaintiff Donovan James was shot by Robert McKenzie outside Terrace Tavern, LLC, and subsequently sued McKenzie, the Tavern, and its landlord, Pro 13 Properties, LLC. McKenzie defaulted, and the Tavern and Pro 13 moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them. The court dismissed the Dram Shop Act claims due to a lack of evidence of intoxication or alcohol service by the Tavern. Furthermore, the negligence claims based on premises liability were also dismissed, as the incident occurred on a public street, outside the scope of the defendants' duty to control third-party behavior. Finding no special relationship that would impose such a duty, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint against Terrace Tavern, LLC and Pro 13 Properties, LLC.

Premises LiabilityNegligenceDram Shop ActSummary JudgmentDuty of CareForeseeabilitySpecial RelationshipPublic Street IncidentBar Owner LiabilityLandlord Liability
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2007

Olszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially awarded property owners, managing agents, and a general contractor over $12 million against a subcontractor for common-law indemnification on February 9, 2007. This decision, stemming from a summary judgment in favor of the owners, was subsequently reversed and vacated by the appellate court. The appellate court found that the lower court erred by granting summary judgment without requiring proof of a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, remanding the case for further determination of the plaintiff's brain injury's gravity. However, the court did affirm a previous finding that the owners' liability was established for contractual indemnification, negating the need for liability apportionment.

common-law indemnificationsummary judgmentgrave injuryWorkers' Compensation Lawapportionment of liabilitythird-party claimscontractual indemnificationreversalvacatedmotion denied
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Camardo v. City of Auburn

The petitioner challenged the City of Auburn's negative declaration concerning the proposed CCC-Center for Performing Arts project under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The petitioner alleged that the respondent failed to conduct a thorough environmental review, improperly segmented the project, and did not adequately involve relevant agencies or the public. The court reviewed the administrative record and determined that the respondent had fulfilled its obligations under SEQRA by identifying environmental concerns, conducting a 'hard look' at them, and providing a reasoned basis for its determination. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitioner's verified petition.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewCity PlanningPublic CommentProject SegmentationLead Agency
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dechick v. Auburn Correctional Facility

Claimant sustained a right knee injury in November 2002 while working as a maintenance assistant at Auburn Correctional Facility. Following surgery, he alleged a consequential aggravation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim for COPD, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, deeming the medical evidence insufficient to prove a causal link between the knee injury/surgery and the COPD. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, upholding that the Board was within its authority to reject speculative medical evidence, even in the absence of contradictory evidence in the record.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjuryCOPDKnee InjuryMedical CausationSpeculative EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionAffirmationSufficiency of Evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dec v. Auburn Enlarged School District

Plaintiff, a former high school teacher, sued the Auburn Enlarged School District, its Board of Education, and individual members for defamation, breach of contract, fraud, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The lawsuit stemmed from a newspaper article alleging his resignation due to sexual misconduct. Defendants sought to amend their answer with new affirmative defenses and moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied several of defendants' proposed amendments and summary judgment motions, except for allowing the amendment for qualified privilege and dismissing certain claims. The appellate court modified the order by granting dismissal of the fraud, intentional, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, and allowing the qualified privilege defense, while upholding the denial of summary judgment on breach of contract due to triable issues of fact.

DefamationBreach of ContractFraudNegligenceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressQualified PrivilegeSummary JudgmentStatute of FraudsAccord and SatisfactionWorkers' Compensation Law
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 36 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