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. 2021 NY Slip Op 03090
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2021

Matter of Ozoria v. Advantage Mgt. Assn.

Crucita Ozoria, a home health aide, was injured in September 2017 and filed a workers' compensation claim, which was established for back and neck injuries. After initial treatments, her physician referred her for surgery. An independent medical examination by Sidhwani concluded she no longer needed causally-related treatment, leading to a suspension of benefits by the WCLJ. A neurosurgeon, Ratzker, requested authorization for cervical spine surgery, which the carrier denied based on reports from Cash and Storrs. The WCLJ upheld the denial and found no further causally-related disability after November 7, 2018. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, found that claimant was denied due process by not having the opportunity to cross-examine the carrier's consultants regarding the surgery denial, as this issue was not properly before the WCLJ at the initial hearing. The court modified the Board's decision by reversing the denial of the C-4 authorization request for surgery and remitted the matter for further proceedings to allow claimant to present evidence or cross-examine the consultants on this specific issue.

Workers' CompensationHome Health AideCervical SpineLumbar Disc HerniationMedical AuthorizationDue ProcessIndependent Medical ExaminationCausally-Related DisabilityCross-ExaminationProcedural Error
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Domino v. Professional Consulting, Inc.

Gregory Domino, a carpenter employed by Carlin Contracting Co., Inc., was injured while working on a Village of Mount Kisco water treatment facility, allegedly due to the installation of floor panels hoisted by a crane owned by Smedley Crane Service, Inc. He and his wife commenced an action for personal injuries against Professional Consulting, Inc. (PCI), the construction manager, and Smedley. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to PCI, finding it was not a "contractor" or "owner" under Labor Law sections 240(1) or 241, nor liable under Labor Law section 200 or common-law negligence due to lack of supervisory authority. The appellate court affirmed this part of the decision, noting PCI's contracts expressly precluded it from supervising the work or safety procedures. However, the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to Smedley, as Smedley failed to establish it lacked authority to control or supervise the crane's rigging activity, thus the appellate court reversed that portion of the decision.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentReargumentConstruction Manager LiabilityCrane OperationWorker SafetyAgency LawStatutory LiabilityPremises Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2004

Claim of Shanbaum v. Alliance Consulting Group

The claimant, a software solution architect for Alliance Consulting Group, sustained an injury on September 11, 2001, while evacuating her apartment located across from her employer's World Trade Center office after the terrorist attacks. Her employer provided and paid for the apartment, which also served as a remote workspace equipped with a company laptop for accessing the main server. On the morning of the incident, the claimant had logged onto her computer, checked work emails, and begun preparing for a meeting. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the apartment functioned as an extension of the employer’s office and that the injury arose within the scope of her employment. This decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentAccidental InjuryTelecommutingHome OfficeWorld Trade Center AttacksSeptember 11Employer LiabilityArising Out Of EmploymentCourse Of Employment
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06389 [210 AD3d 1448]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2022

Smith v. MDA Consulting Engrs., PLLC

Nicholas Smith sued MDA Consulting Engineers, PLLC, for injuries sustained after falling from a foundation wall during construction, alleging Labor Law and common-law negligence violations. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court determined that the defendant was not an owner, contractor, or statutory agent of the Town, and therefore lacked supervisory control over the work or safety measures, absolving them of liability under Labor Law and common-law negligence. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewAgency RelationshipConstruction AccidentFall InjurySupervisory ControlCommon-Law NegligenceStatement of Material FactsStatutory Agent
References
17
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00218 [157 AD3d 1116]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2018

Matter of Joseph v. Atelier Consulting LLC

Claimant Brad Joseph, a construction worker, sought workers' compensation benefits after fracturing his foot while working at a construction site, naming George Villar/Atelier Consulting LLC as his employer. An investigation revealed Atelier was exempt from coverage and lacked workers' compensation insurance at the time of the accident. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined an employer-employee relationship existed between Atelier and Joseph, holding Omega Construction Group, Inc., the general contractor, responsible for awards and imposing a $36,000 penalty on Atelier for failing to secure insurance. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the employer-employee relationship and no error in the Board's refusal to consider an affidavit from Villar.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipConstruction AccidentInsurance CoveragePenalty ImpositionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAffidavit AdmissibilityCross-Examination RightsGeneral Contractor Liability
References
5
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04821
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2023

Liu v. Whitestar Consulting & Contr., Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a prior order concerning a construction site accident where plaintiff Noah Liu fell 20 to 25 feet from an unguarded plywood ramp. The court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendants Moinian, Newmark, and Whitestar Consulting & Contracting, Inc. It was determined that the ramp, spanning a significant height differential and lacking safety devices, fell under the purview of Labor Law § 240 (1). Consequently, the defendants' motions to dismiss this claim were denied, and the plaintiffs were awarded summary judgment as to liability. Claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence were deemed academic in light of this ruling.

Construction accidentLabor Lawunguarded rampfall from heightsummary judgmentAppellate Divisionpersonal injurypremises liabilityelevation differentialsafety devices
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Basketball Ass'n v. Design Management Consultants, Inc.

The National Basketball Association (NBA) and NBA Properties, Inc. (plaintiffs) initiated a civil contempt motion against Designer Management Consultants, Inc. (DMC) and Delroy Allen (defendants). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated a Preliminary Injunction on Consent, issued on August 11, 2003, by continuing to sell 'Disputed Merchandise' bearing NBA trademarks and failing to provide a complete accounting of these sales. The court found clear and convincing evidence of non-compliance regarding merchandise sales and accounting documentation. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for civil contempt was granted, with sanctions including a $2,500 daily fine for continued non-compliance after October 15, 2003, and an entitlement to net profits from the unlawful sales, to be determined later.

Trademark InfringementCivil ContemptPreliminary InjunctionTrademark DilutionUnfair CompetitionDeceptive ActsBrand ProtectionIntellectual PropertySanctionsCompliance
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01273 [169 AD3d 1187]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Family & Educ. Consultants, LLC v. New York State Ins. Fund

Family & Educational Consultants, LLC, doing business as Partnership for Education, sought to file a late notice of claim against the New York State Insurance Fund to recover $250,000 in workers' compensation premiums. The claimant asserted that its therapists were independent contractors, not employees, and thus the premiums were improperly calculated. While the Court of Claims initially granted permission for the late filing, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the Court of Claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the core issue, which involved challenging an agency's determination of employee classification. It clarified that such determinations are properly reviewed through a CPLR article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court, which could also provide incidental relief for overpayments.

Workers' Compensation PremiumsIndependent ContractorsSubject Matter JurisdictionCourt of ClaimsAgency DeterminationCPLR Article 78Late Notice of ClaimAppellate ReviewEmployee ClassificationInsurance Disputes
References
9
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 23398 [81 Misc 3d 21]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2023

Associated Plastic Surgeons & Consultants, P.C. v. Global Commodities, Inc.

Plaintiff, Associated Plastic Surgeons & Consultants, P.C., filed a commercial claims action against Global Commodities, Inc. for $5,000 for unpaid medical services provided to an alleged employee. Plaintiff claimed defendant agreed to pay privately. The District Court dismissed the action after excluding a document detailing telephone conversations, which plaintiff argued was admissible under the business records exception or relaxed commercial claims evidence rules. The Appellate Term affirmed the dismissal, ruling that plaintiff failed to prove the patient was injured during employment or that the document was admissible as a business record, thus failing to establish defendant's liability for the medical bill. The court emphasized that while commercial claims courts are not bound by strict evidence rules, judgments cannot rest solely on hearsay.

Commercial claimsMedical servicesUnpaid billsBusiness records exceptionHearsayEvidence rulesEmploymentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate reviewSubstantial justice
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Assurance Co. v. D.P. Consulting Corp.

American Home Assurance Company (American), an insurer, commenced a declaratory judgment action against D.E Consulting Corp. (D.E) and AvalonBay Communities, Inc. (AvalonBay). American sought a declaration that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify D.E in an underlying personal injury action, Canteros v AvalonBay Communities, Inc., asserting that no 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 had occurred. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied American's motion for summary judgment on this issue. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment. The appellate panel concluded that D.E had successfully raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether Canteros sustained a 'grave injury,' thereby preventing a ruling, as a matter of law, that American had no potential obligation to indemnify D.E under its policy.

Declaratory judgmentIndemnificationContributionGrave injuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary judgmentInsurance policyEmployer liabilityTriable issue of factAppellate Division
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,069 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