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. ADJ3673382 (AHM 0084473) ADJ1727200 (AHM 0085831) ADJ4050086 (AHM 0085856) ADJ2402991 (AHM 0085857) ADJ1361609 (AHM 0085858) ADJ700319 (AHM 0085827) ADJ1199908 (AHM 0085828) ADJ2455910 (AHM 0085829) ADJ1533147 (AHM 0085855)
Regular
Jun 19, 2009

DOUGLAS BOULWARE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGLES FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior decision due to acknowledged errors by the WCJ, including a miscalculation of the applicant's life pension, and procedural issues raised by the defendant regarding service of rating instructions. The case involves multiple injury claims to various body parts over a long period, with complex apportionment issues. The matter is returned to the trial level for new formal rating instructions, proper service, opportunity for cross-examination, and a new decision addressing all contentions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDouglas BoulwareCounty of Los Angeles Fire DepartmentIntercare Insurance Servicesfirefighterindustrial injuryskinhearingshoulderselbows
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cambizaca v. New York City Transit Authority

The decedent, working for a contractor, was fatally injured on a subway platform by a broken angle grinder part while performing work for the New York City Transit Authority. The plaintiff, as administratrix of the decedent's estate, filed suit against the New York City Transit Authority alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims. The court found no supervisory control by the defendant over the work methods for the negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and the plaintiff failed to identify a viable Industrial Code provision for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Common-law negligenceLabor Lawsubway accidentworkplace injurysummary judgmentcontractor liabilitysupervisory controlIndustrial Codeunsafe work environmentconstruction safety
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rought v. Price Chopper Operating Co.

This dissenting opinion argues against applying material hoisting regulations to the process of installing electrical wires by pulling them through conduit. The dissent asserts there is no evidence that the equipment used was lifting or suspending the wires. It highlights that the forklift was used to apply force to pull wires through a 90-degree angle, not to raise them. The opinion refers to the plaintiff's deposition, which clarified that the forklift applied force only after the wire was pushed to the turn, leading to tension that caused the wire to recoil when the rope broke. The dissent concludes that the equipment did not constitute "material hoisting equipment" under 12 NYCRR subpart 23-6, and therefore, the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action should have been dismissed. Stein, J., concurred.

material hoistingelectrical wiresforkliftconduit installationLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)summary judgmentdissenting opinionworkers protectionsafety regulations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2004

Rodriguez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

The plaintiff appealed from an order granting summary judgment to defendants Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Black & Decker (US), Inc., in a personal injury action. The plaintiff was injured while using an angle grinder manufactured by Black & Decker and sold by Sears, after modifying it by replacing the original wheel and removing the safety guard. The Supreme Court, Kings County, found that the defendants had established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, concluding the plaintiff was aware of the dangers and warnings were adequate. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, dismissing the appeal from the intermediate order, concurring that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding inadequate warnings or defective design.

Product liabilitySummary judgment affirmedWarning adequacyDesign defectAngle grinder accidentPersonal injury appealManufacturer liabilitySeller liabilityHazard awarenessModified product
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vestal v. Yonkers Contracting Co.

Plaintiff Leroy Vestal, an employee of a subcontractor, was injured while performing construction services on a bridge platform. He was struck by a bundle of grade angles that fell from a rebar platform due to his failure to follow safety instructions. Vestal and his wife filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding it inapplicable because the elevation differential was not the cause of an 'exceptionally dangerous condition.' The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, concurring that the injury resulted from an 'ordinary and usual' peril inherent to a construction site, not the type of elevation-related injury covered by Labor Law § 240 (1).

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Elevation RiskWorker InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewOccupational SafetySubcontractor LiabilityNew York LawSafety Procedures
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Becerra v. Promenade Apartments Inc.

In this dissenting opinion, Judge DeGrasse argues against the majority's implicit finding of liability under Labor Law § 241 (6), which was predicated on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.5 (c) (3). The plaintiff, a demolition worker, was injured by an angle grinder lacking a guard. Judge DeGrasse contends that Industrial Code § 23-1.5 (c) (3) is a general safety standard and does not specifically mandate guarding for grinders, unlike saws which are explicitly covered in § 23-1.12 (c) (1). Applying statutory construction principles, the dissent concludes that the omission of grinder guarding requirements in the Industrial Code signifies an intentional exclusion, thus precluding liability under the invoked provision.

Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.5(c)(3)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.12(c)(1)Angle Grinder InjuryDemolition WorkerStatutory InterpretationRegulatory InterpretationSafety Device RequirementsMachinery GuardingDissenting Opinion
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Brown v. Highways Displays, Inc.

Judge Reynolds dissents, arguing for the reversal of the board's decision to award death benefits. The board had found the deceased claimant's work activities, including operating a punch, carrying angle irons, and placing a cutting machine, sufficiently strenuous to precipitate a myocardial infarction. However, Judge Reynolds contends that the record lacks adequate evidence to substantiate the extent of the decedent's involvement in such strenuous activities just prior to his collapse. He highlights the absence of proof for key strenuous tasks and notes that medical testimony supporting causal relationship was based on an unsubstantiated assumption of heavy work. The dissent concludes that the record does not support the finding of causal relationship or that the work entailed greater exertion than the ordinary wear and tear of life.

Myocardial InfarctionDeath BenefitsCausal RelationshipStrenuous WorkSubstantial EvidenceDissenting OpinionWorkers' Compensation BoardScope of EmploymentHeart AttackOccupational Disease
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Misicki v. Caradonna

Igor Misicki, a laborer employed by Upgrade Contracting Company, was injured while working on a construction project for 430-50 Shore Road Corporation. He was using a handheld angle grinder without its side handle, despite complaining to his foreman, when it kicked back and struck his face. Misicki sued the owner, alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 (6), specifically relying on 12 NYCRR 23-9.2 (a) concerning the maintenance of power-operated equipment. After varying rulings in lower courts, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the third sentence of 12 NYCRR 23-9.2 (a) imposes a specific affirmative duty to correct structural defects or unsafe conditions upon discovery, thus supporting a cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6).

Labor Law § 241(6) LiabilityIndustrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-9.2(a)Construction Site InjuryPower-Operated Equipment SafetyMissing Safety DeviceEmployer NegligenceOwner LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionNew York Court of Appeals DecisionAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Severino v. Schuyler Meadows Club, Inc.

Peter Severino, an injured worker, and his wife, Patricia Severino, filed suit after Peter sustained injuries at a construction site in Colonie, Albany County. The site was owned by Schuyler Meadows Club, Inc. and Schuyler Meadows Country Club, Inc., with Barry, Bette & Led Duke, Inc. (BBLD) as the general contractor. Peter was injured when a ladder he was using shifted and an angle iron fell, striking him. The complaint alleged negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200(1), 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court granted a directed verdict against Schuyler and BBLD for violating Labor Law § 240(1), dismissed claims against Schenectady Steel Company, Inc., and denied BBLD's motion against Brownell Steel, Inc. The jury found BBLD 20% liable and Brownell 80% liable. The judgment and order were affirmed on appeal.

Construction Site AccidentLadder FallFalling ObjectLabor Law ViolationsDirected VerdictIndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 1992

Samiani v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

Michael Samiani was injured while performing construction work on a building owned by New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG) when he allegedly stepped on an angle iron left by a subcontractor, Niagara Frontier Sheet Metal, Inc. Samiani and other plaintiffs commenced an action against NYSEG and Niagara. NYSEG moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied, finding questions of fact regarding NYSEG's notice of the hazardous condition and the extent of indemnification. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that there was sufficient proof to raise a question of fact as to whether NYSEG, through its agent Cowper, exercised control over the work site and had notice of the dangerous condition under Labor Law § 200 (1). The court also found plaintiffs' claim under Labor Law § 241 (6), citing a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2), was properly sustained. Finally, the court agreed that the issue of indemnification required a trial to determine the extent of negligence among the parties.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241Worksite ControlHazardous ConditionSubcontractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityIndemnificationAppellate ReviewConstruction Site Injury
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 11 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