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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 1989

Cannon v. Putnam

This case examines the scope of the dwelling-owner exemption under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241, which exempts owners of one and two-family dwellings who do not direct or control the work from certain safety duties. Defendant Albert Putnam owned a property with both residential and commercial uses. Plaintiff Robert Cannon was injured while installing a floodlight for aesthetic purposes related to Putnam's residence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decision, holding that the exemption applies when the commercial activities are housed in separate structures, and the work is unrelated to those commercial structures, focusing on the 'site and purpose of the work.' The court also found that Putnam did not direct or control the work.

Dwelling-owner exemptionLabor Law liabilitystatutory interpretationowner controlresidential propertycommercial propertyconstruction accidentpersonal injurynondelegable dutysite and purpose test
References
5
Case No. 702991/18
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2026

Cannon v. H&L Contr., LLC

The plaintiff, James Cannon, sued H & L Contracting, LLC for personal injuries sustained in two separate incidents in January 2018 while working on a project to repair the fender system of the Whitestone Bridge. The first incident involved slipping from an excavator step into a hole on a crane mat on a barge. The second incident occurred when the plaintiff allegedly fell while crossing a gap between a concrete pile cap and the shore after disembarking the barge. The Supreme Court denied both the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision regarding the defendant's motion, granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint for both incidents. The court found that the defendant's liability for the first incident fell under its role as employer, not vessel owner, under the LHWCA, and for the second incident, the injury occurred on an extension of land, not an appurtenance of the vessel. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLongshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation ActVessel NegligenceEmployer LiabilityDual-Capacity DefendantAdmiralty LawMaritime LawAppellate ReviewWorker Safety
References
11
Case No. 08-cv-3546 (ADS)(WDW)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2011

Smith v. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD DEPT. OF SANITATION

This civil rights case was brought by three African-American employees, Leo Smith, Jr., Benjamin Cannon, Jr., and John Christopher Smith, against the Town of Hempstead Department of Sanitation Sanitary District No. 2 and several individual defendants. Plaintiffs alleged a hostile work environment based on a noose incident and subsequent retaliation for filing EEOC complaints. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims against the Sanitary District, Robert Noble, Michael McDermott, and Nicholas Dionisio, citing triable issues of fact regarding the severity of the environment and the adequacy of the employer's remedial actions. However, summary judgment was granted for defendant John Beyer and the Board of Commissioners on these claims. Retaliation claims by John Smith and Benjamin Cannon were dismissed, but Leo Smith's retaliation claim against Michael McDermott and the Sanitary District was allowed to proceed. All claims of conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 were dismissed due to lack of evidence of agreement and the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRacial DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentCivil RightsTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983New York State Human Rights LawIntracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine
References
43
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00128
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2024

Deprospo v. Nixon-Cochran

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court order denying Baitoa's motion for summary judgment. Baitoa's motion was deemed timely served by hard copy, despite a delay in electronic filing. However, the motion was properly denied because Baitoa failed to make a prima facie showing that it could not be held vicariously liable for its delivery driver's alleged negligence. The court found that factual issues regarding the driver's employment status (employee vs. independent contractor) needed to be resolved by a jury.

Summary JudgmentVicarious LiabilityIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee ClassificationTimeliness of MotionPrima Facie ShowingDelivery Driver NegligenceFactual Issues for JuryAppellate ReviewCPLR 2001
References
6
Case No. ADJ8937901
Regular
Mar 03, 2016

SANDRA DELAO vs. MARTIN TRANSPORTATION, LTD., CANNON COCHRAN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Sandra Delao's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The petition was filed over 25 days after the WCJ's December 10, 2015 decision, exceeding the statutory filing deadline. Additionally, the petition was not verified and was not served on applicant's attorney or defendant's attorney, providing further grounds for dismissal. Therefore, the Board had no jurisdiction to consider the petition's merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictionalVerificationServiceLabor Code Section 5902Labor Code Section 5903Rule 10507Rule 10508Rule 10845
References
5
Case No. ADJ 7238353
Regular
Apr 13, 2012

ARTHUR CANNON vs. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a January 24, 2012 decision in the case of Arthur Cannon vs. City of Sacramento. The WCAB determined that reconsideration was necessary due to statutory time constraints and an initial review of the record. This action will allow for further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future communications regarding this case must be filed in writing with the Office of the Commissioners.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemCity of SacramentoArthur CannonStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decision
References
0
Case No. ADJ7238353
Regular
Dec 10, 2012

Arthur Cannon vs. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to review the denial of permanent disability for Arthur Cannon, a police officer injured in 2008. An Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) opined that while objective findings were minimal, the applicant's heel pain justified a 7% Whole Person Impairment rating by analogy to gait derangement. The WCAB found the AME's analogy was permissible under *Almaraz/Guzman* to address impairments not specifically covered by the AMA Guides, thus rescinding the original award. The dissenting opinion argued there was no objective evidence of impairment in earning capacity, normal member use, or competitive handicap, and therefore no basis for the rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardArthur CannonCity of SacramentoReconsiderationPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleAgreed Medical ExaminerAMA GuidesWhole Person ImpairmentPlantar FasciitisGait Derangement
References
5
Case No. ADJ9016407
Regular
Sep 18, 2014

MARIA VALADEZ vs. BUDGET JANITORIAL, HARTFORD INSURANCE, CANNON COCHRAN SCOTTSDALE

The defendant sought to depose the applicant's attorney, alleging crucial information regarding the applicant's alleged industrial injuries was obtainable only through this deposition. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, upholding the WCJ's protective order. The Board found the defendant failed to demonstrate the attorney's deposition was crucial, as applicant's deposition and access to medical records already provided sufficient means to defend the claim. The defendant's petition was therefore denied.

Petition for RemovalProtective OrderDeposition of AttorneyDiscovery DisputesIrreparable HarmAttorney-Client PrivilegeCarehouse Convalescent HospitalIndustrial InjuriesMedical RecordsEmployer Witnesses
References
0
Case No. ADJ9871301
Regular
Dec 06, 2018

ISRAEL NAVARRETE HERNANDEZ vs. SUPERIOR TRAILER WORKS/CANNON COCHRAN IRVINE; THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's decision. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination regarding the applicant's testimony. The applicant's report of injury was found to be contemporaneous with his termination, thus falling under an exception to the post-termination defense. The Board also found substantial medical evidence from the defendant's own clinic supporting the applicant's industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibility determinationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.post-termination defenseLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)AOE/COEcumulative traumaLabor Code Section 5412substantial medical evidence
References
7
Case No. ADJ9223025, ADJ7293685, ADJ8949518
Regular
May 07, 2054

DONALD SMITH vs. ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS, CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration in this case. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely, improperly served, and lacking substantive merit. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, which found the petition did not provide grounds to set aside the prior Order Approving Compromise and Release, as that order was supported by substantial medical evidence. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was formally dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedUntimelyNot Properly ServedSkeletalOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseQualified Medical EvaluationDr. McCoySubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 55 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