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. 2018 NY Slip Op 04542 [162 AD3d 878]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2018

Lorde v. Margaret Tietz Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr.

Thomas Lorde, a carpenter, was injured after falling from an inverted bucket while installing sheetrock at premises owned by Margaret Tietz Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. Lorde filed an action for personal injuries, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and moved for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Lorde appealed this decision to the Appellate Division, Second Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that Lorde failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as his testimony raised triable issues of fact regarding the availability of safety devices and whether his own negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injury.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Elevated Work SiteSafety DevicesProximate CauseWorker NegligenceAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFalling Accident
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rubies v. Aqua Club, Inc.

Judge Read dissents from the majority's interpretation of 'permanent total disability' concerning acquired brain injuries under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Read argues for a narrower definition, requiring the inability to perform usual daily living activities, aligning with legislative intent for the 1996 amendment to section 11. This amendment aimed to strictly curtail third-party actions against employers by narrowly defining 'grave injuries.' The dissent stresses that the list of grave injuries is exhaustive, not illustrative, and should not be broadly interpreted. Therefore, the definition of 'permanent total disability' for an acquired brain injury should essentially require a vegetative state to protect employers as intended by the Legislature.

Workers' CompensationGrave InjuryAcquired Brain InjuryPermanent Total DisabilityLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionsDissenting OpinionJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. ADJ11114962
Regular
Jan 10, 2019

HECTOR HERNANDEZ vs. MARK DATTILLO’S HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, APPLIED RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the judge's finding that the applicant's accepted head injury included a brain injury. The Board found the defendant's objections regarding notice of the brain injury claim and the timeliness of their response to medical treatment requests were unfounded. Furthermore, the Board determined that the defendant waived its right to dispute the industrial causation of the brain injury by previously authorizing treatment with a neurologist who diagnosed such an injury. The defendant's due process claims were also rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTraumatic Brain InjuryExpedited HearingFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4610Utilization ReviewPrimary Treating PhysicianAgreed Medical ExaminationWCJ
References
9
Case No. ADJ9084165
Regular
Oct 19, 2015

BOBBY DUCKWORTH vs. LOS ANGELES RAMS, TRAVELERS, SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's current claim for cumulative brain injury is not barred by a 1989 compromise and release agreement. The 1989 agreement specifically released claims for orthopedic injuries, and there was no evidence that the applicant knew of or intended to release a brain injury claim at that time. The Board found that the brain injury claim, diagnosed later, involved a distinct injury not contemplated by the earlier settlement. Therefore, the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply to bar the current claim.

res judicatacollateral estoppelcompromise and releasecumulative injurybrain injurynervous systemorthopedic injurylatent conditiondate of injuryworkers' compensation appeals board
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bush v. Mechanicville Warehouse Corp.

This case involves an appeal from the denial of a third-party defendant's (Yankee One Dollar Stores, Inc.) motions for summary judgment against a defendant (Mechanicville Warehouse Corp.). The plaintiff, Bush, was injured at work and sued Mechanicville, who then brought a third-party action against Yankee for indemnification. Yankee argued that plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and that there was no written contractual indemnification agreement. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the 'grave injury' claim, finding sufficient evidence of permanent total disability due to a traumatic brain injury. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment for contractual indemnification, ruling that Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 requires an *express written contract* of indemnification from the employer, which was not present between Yankee and Mechanicville.

Summary JudgmentThird-Party ActionWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryContractual IndemnificationBrain InjuryPermanent Total DisabilityHoldover TenantExpress AgreementAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1995

In re Jordan Rehabilitation Service, Inc.

Jordan Rehabilitation Service, Inc., providing medical and vocational rehabilitative services, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board assessed additional unemployment insurance contributions, finding that specialists hired by Jordan were employees, not independent contractors, between 1989 and 1991. The court reviewed whether there was substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion of an employer-employee relationship. Key factors included Jordan's control over recruitment, screening, compensation, billing, and contractual restrictions on specialists. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Board's decision, determining that Jordan exercised sufficient overall control to establish an employer-employee relationship and thus was liable for the contributions.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorRehabilitation ServicesLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceControl TestJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeDepartment of Labor
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2014

Forest Rehabilitation Medicine PC v. Allstate Insurance

Plaintiff Forest Rehabilitation Medicine PC sued defendant Allstate to recover $3,490 for no-fault medical benefits provided to assignor Tracy Fertitta. The core issue was the medical necessity of "Calmare pain therapy" (scrambler therapy), a novel treatment. The court conducted a bench trial, hearing expert testimony from both sides. Dr. Ayman Hadhoud, for the defense, argued the treatment was not medically necessary, not cost-effective, and essentially a form of physical therapy. Dr. Jack D’Angelo, for the plaintiff, countered that the therapy, though new, had FDA approval, was used by the military, and reduced the assignor's pain levels. Applying the Frye standard, the court found the evidence regarding Calmare scrambler therapy reliable and ruled it was medically necessary for Ms. Fertitta's pain management. Consequently, judgment was awarded to the plaintiff, Forest Rehabilitation Medicine PC, for $3,490 plus attorney's fees and interest.

No-Fault InsuranceMedical NecessityCalmare Pain TherapyScrambler TherapyNovel TreatmentFrye StandardExpert TestimonyPain ManagementFDA ApprovalCervical Radiculopathy
References
14
Case No. ADJ8653793; ADJ8653794
Regular
Aug 12, 2016

KARI JACKSON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

This case involves applicant Kari Jackson's claim for workers' compensation benefits from the State of California, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the applicant's challenge to the administrative law judge's apportionment of prior permanent disability. The Board amended the decision to remove a 4% apportionment to a prior left knee injury, finding no substantial medical evidence supported it. However, the overall 62% permanent disability finding for the primary injury remains, along with clerical corrections to indemnity and attorney fees.

Labor Code Section 4664ApportionmentPermanent DisabilityStipulated AwardPrior AwardSubstantial Medical EvidenceOverlapPrimary Treating PhysicianAgreed Medical EvaluatorWhole Person Impairment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rubeis v. Aqua Club, Inc.

Aldo Rubeis was injured after falling from a ladder while installing a steel cupola, sustaining a brain injury. He sued Aqua Club, Inc., who then impleaded Rubeis's employer, Venezia Iron Works, Inc., alleging a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Supreme Court denied Venezia Iron Works' motion to dismiss, and a jury found Rubeis sustained a grave injury. Venezia Iron Works appealed. The Appellate Division reviewed the definition of "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, specifically "permanent total disability" in the context of brain injury cases. The Court concluded that Rubeis's injuries, despite their severity, did not meet the "narrowly defined" standard for grave injury based on prior precedents, which focus on day-to-day functions rather than just employability. Therefore, the Appellate Division reversed the judgment, granted Venezia Iron Works' motion, and dismissed the third-party complaint.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Permanent Total Disability DefinitionBrain Injury SeverityCommon Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimThird-Party Action DismissalAppellate Review StandardsStatutory InterpretationEmployer Liability Exemption
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barbieri v. Mount Sinai Hospital

Plaintiff, a carpenter employed by Universal Drywall Services, suffered severe injuries after falling 30 feet at a Mount Sinai Hospital work site. Plaintiff sued Mount Sinai under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), alleging various disabling injuries including fractures, nerve damage, and brain injuries. Mount Sinai, in turn, sought contribution and indemnification from Universal. Universal argued that Mount Sinai's claim was barred because the plaintiff had not sustained a "grave injury" as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The IAS Court granted summary judgment to plaintiff against Mount Sinai, and to Universal, dismissing Mount Sinai's third-party complaint. This court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that plaintiff's alleged injuries did not meet the "grave injury" threshold under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, specifically not constituting "permanent and severe facial disfigurement" or "permanent total disability" from brain injury, thereby barring Mount Sinai's third-party action against Universal.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Labor Law § 240 (1)Contribution and IndemnificationThird-Party ActionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityWorkplace AccidentFacial DisfigurementBrain Injury
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 13,119 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