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. Docket No. 10
Regular Panel Decision

Zhong v. August August Corp.

Plaintiff Jian Zhong filed a class action against defendant August August Corp. alleging denial of overtime compensation and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Minimum Wage Act (NYMWA). Defendant August filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the FLSA overtime claims and related state law claims, but denied it in part, allowing the FLSA minimum wage claims and related state law claims to proceed. Plaintiff Zhong was granted leave to amend the complaint to address the deficiencies in the dismissed claims.

FLSANYMWAWage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationMinimum Wage ViolationMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6) MotionLeave to AmendClass Action PotentialSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kimball v. Fort Ticonderoga Ass'n

Plaintiff August W. Kimball sustained serious injuries while working as an employee of a contractor at Fort Ticonderoga in Essex County, owned by the defendant. He fell 15 to 18 feet into an excavation when a nail caught his pants, lacking any safety devices at the worksite. Kimball filed a lawsuit, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court initially granted Kimball's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, but this decision was subsequently appealed. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, denying Kimball's motion and granting the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the second cause of action, concluding that the circumstances of the fall were not within the contemplation of Labor Law § 240 (1).

Workers' CompensationFallConstruction SiteSafety DevicesLabor Law § 240Absolute LiabilityExcavationPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 1981

Claim of Bock v. Burns, Van Kirk, Greene & Kafer

The respondent Workers’ Compensation Board moved to dismiss appeals filed by the appellant on March 27, 1980, May 7, 1980, and August 18, 1980. The court granted the Board's motion to dismiss the March 27 and May 7 appeals as moot due to a subsequent board determination. The August 18, 1980 appeal was dismissed because the underlying board decision, which merely referred the case to an impartial medical specialist, was nonfinal and therefore not appealable. The claimant's motion dated January 29, 1981, was granted only to the extent that the original board file could be provided as an exhibit. Another motion by the claimant dated March 16, 1981, seeking vacatur of decisions, consolidation of appeals, and change of venue, was denied.

Appeal DismissalMootnessNonfinal DecisionWorkers' Compensation AppealsMotion PracticeJudicial ReviewCase ReferralMedical SpecialistBoard FileConsolidation of Appeals
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carnibucci v. New York State Executive Department Division for Youth

Petitioner, a Youth Division Aide IV, was terminated on August 10, 1991, under Civil Service Law § 71 due to alleged cumulative absences exceeding one year from a work-related back injury. Petitioner challenged the termination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserting a second back injury was unrelated to the first. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently ruled on May 27, 1992, that the second injury was indeed unrelated, leading to petitioner's reinstatement on October 18, 1992. The Supreme Court initially awarded back pay only until the Board's determination date. However, the appellate court modified this judgment, directing that back pay should be awarded from the date of wrongful termination, August 10, 1991, until the date of actual reinstatement, October 18, 1992.

Public EmploymentWrongful TerminationBack PayReinstatementCivil Service LawWorkers' CompensationAppellate DivisionArticle 78 ProceedingDisability BenefitsState Employee
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2001

Claim of Medina v. Building Maintenance Service

Claimant sustained work-related injuries in July 1999. Her physician, Dr. Magdy Elamir, failed to file medical reports with the Workers' Compensation Board after August 1999 and before April 18, 2001, and with the State Insurance Fund until April 18, 2001. This led to a controversy over insurance coverage between Fireman’s Fund and State Fund. Initially, a WCLJ awarded benefits, but the Board rescinded the award for October 4, 1999, to April 18, 2001, citing prejudice to State Fund. On appeal, the court determined that State Fund was not prejudiced from October 4, 1999, to December 21, 2000, and reversed that part of the Board's decision, while affirming the denial of benefits from December 21, 2000, to April 18, 2001.

Workers' CompensationMedical Report FilingPrejudiceInsurance Coverage DisputeDenial of BenefitsAppellate ReviewAdministrative DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceRegulatory ComplianceNeurologist
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Patel v. Tal Transportation, Inc.

Claimant, a driver for Tal Transportation, Inc. (TTI), was injured in an automobile accident in April 1996 and filed for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found claimant to be an employee of TTI and established the case for accident, notice, and causal relationship for various injuries. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision on October 18, 2000, confirming the employment relationship. Subsequently, based on a stipulation with the Uninsured Employer’s Fund, the WCLJ awarded claimant a 17½% schedule loss of use of the left arm, which the Board affirmed on December 18, 2001. TTI appealed this latter decision, attempting to challenge the employment relationship, but the court found that TTI's appeal was untimely regarding the employment finding. Since TTI did not challenge the schedule loss of use award itself, the Board's December 18, 2001 decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseEmployment RelationshipTimeliness of AppealAutomobile AccidentUninsured Employer's FundDriverInjuryNew York Workers' Compensation BoardAdministrative Law
References
1
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08791 [178 AD3d 473]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2019

Garcia v. SMJ 210 W. 18 LLC

Plaintiff Juan Garcia was injured when struck by a falling piece of DensGlass while working on a temporary exterior platform on the 21st floor of a building under construction. He was dismantling a bridge linked to an exterior hoist elevator when the material, matching a missing piece from the floor above, struck him. The court reversed the lower court's decision, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding that the exterior facade was incomplete and workers were performing patch work above. Additionally, the court denied the defendants-respondents' cross motions for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, citing a triable issue of fact regarding the necessity of overhead protection in an area exposed to falling objects.

Construction AccidentFalling ObjectLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorker SafetyOverhead ProtectionBuilding Under Construction
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kenneth V.

This is an appeal from a Family Court order that found respondent August V., Ill neglected his children. The proceeding was initiated by the petitioner, alleging neglect due to the parents' refusal to accept intensive counseling for two children exhibiting aggressive behavior, including wielding a knife. The Family Court initially found the father neglected all seven children. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding no evidence of parental misconduct by the father. The court determined that treatment recommendations were not directly communicated to the father, and he was unaware of the escalated fighting. Consequently, the petition against August V., Ill was dismissed due to insufficient proof of neglect.

NeglectChild protectionParental misconductFamily lawChild welfareAbuseErie CountyAppellate reviewParental responsibilityMental health services
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01171 [235 AD3d 591]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Lopez v. 18-20 Park 84 Corp.

Plaintiff Felipe A. Lazaro Lopez, a painter employed by Dowd Interiors, Inc., suffered a fall from a ladder during renovation work. Lopez filed a personal injury lawsuit against 18-20 Park 84 Corp., the building owner, under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court of New York County initially granted Lopez's motion for partial summary judgment on liability against 18-20 Park 84 Corp. and denied Dowd's motion to dismiss third-party claims for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to Lopez. However, it modified the lower court's order by granting Dowd's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the common-law indemnification and contribution claims. This modification was based on the finding that Lopez did not suffer a 'grave injury' as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallIndemnificationContributionGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law
References
10
Case No. 2020-09171, N-349-18, N-8740-18, N-8741-18, N-8742-18, N-8743-18, N-8744-18, N-8745-18, N-8746-18, N-8747-18, N-8748-18, N-8749-18, N-8750-18, N-8751-18, N-8752-18, N-8753-18, N-345-19
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2022

Matter of Amaris A. A. (Jasmine R.)

This case details an appeal by Jasmine R., the mother, from a Family Court order in Suffolk County. The Family Court had found that the mother abused her child, Amaris A. A., and derivatively neglected her seven other children, based on evidence of abusive head trauma and multiple healing rib fractures. The Suffolk County Department of Social Services presented expert testimony from a pediatric radiologist confirming non-accidental trauma. The mother failed to rebut the prima facie case of child abuse. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's findings, concluding that DSS established abuse and derivative neglect by a preponderance of the evidence.

Family LawChild AbuseChild NeglectDerivative NeglectAbusive Head TraumaRib FracturesFamily Court Act Article 10Preponderance of EvidencePrima Facie CaseAppellate Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,246 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