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. 2024 NY Slip Op 04676
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2024

Ballard v. 300 E. Blvd. Canandaigua LLC

Plaintiffs Keith Ballard and others appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Oneida County, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action. Keith Ballard was injured after falling from a roof during construction when he stepped on an unsecured plywood sheet. Plaintiffs argued that the defendant's failure to provide fall protection was a proximate cause. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendant raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether plaintiff's own negligence, specifically his choice not to use an available harness, was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The court cited testimony indicating harnesses were available and the plaintiff had been instructed to wear one.

Fall ProtectionLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Partial Summary JudgmentSole Proximate CauseContributory NegligenceConstruction AccidentAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyPlywood
References
11
Case No. OAK 0332540
Regular
Apr 21, 2008

TYRONE JOHNSON vs. CAL STATE, HAYWARD, SEDGWICK CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of the WCJ's prior decision in Johnson v. Cal State, Hayward and Sedgwick Claims Services. The WCAB rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the case for further proceedings and a new decision. This action is not a final determination on the merits.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Reconsiderationworkers' compensation administrative law judgegrant reconsiderationrescind decisionfurther proceedingsdecision after reconsiderationtrial levelreconsideration of decisionreturn to trial level
References
0
Case No. ADJ10335087 ADJ10335071
Regular
Jan 03, 2020

RICHARD GONZALES vs. CAL FIRE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, State Employees Adjusting Agency

This case involves two workers' compensation claims for Richard Gonzales against CAL FIRE. The Appeals Board affirmed the award in ADJ10335087, which found a 46% permanent disability. However, the Board rescinded the January 3, 2019 award in ADJ10335071, which found a 77% permanent disability and awarded attorney's fees based on 15% of permanent disability indemnity. The Board remanded ADJ10335071 for further development of the medical record regarding whether permanent disabilities should be added or combined, and to revisit the attorney's fees, specifically including the value of the life pension.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityAttorney's FeeQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Combined Values Chart (CVC)Synergistic Effect
References
8
Case No. ADJ9264974
Regular
Nov 20, 2017

LUZ MARTINEZ MARTINEZ vs. SO CAL FOODS dba BAJA FRESH, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration in the case of Martinez v. So Cal Foods. This decision allows the WCAB further time to thoroughly study the factual and legal issues presented. Pending a decision after reconsideration, all related communications must be filed directly with the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not the district office. Trial-level documents not related to the petition should continue to be e-filed normally.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual IssuesLegal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemWCJ
References
0
Case No. ADJ8641548
Regular
May 11, 2016

MILAGROS ALBANO (Dec'd), JONALYN ALBANO (Daughter), JOE RICHARD ALBANO (Son), JOANNE MAE ALBANO (Daughter) vs. CAL AMP CORPORATION, HARTFORD ACCIDENT \& INDEMNITY COMPANY, STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicants' petition for reconsideration in the case of Milagros Albano (deceased) versus Cal Amp Corporation and its insurers. This decision was made to allow further study of the factual and legal issues. All future correspondence regarding the petition must be filed directly with the Board's Commissioners in San Francisco. Trial level documents not related to the reconsideration petition should continue to be filed as usual.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGrant of ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionFurther ProceedingsOffice of the CommissionersSan FranciscoElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)
References
0
Case No. ADJ4055046 (VNO 0490494)
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

JAIME AGABO vs. HI-TECH IRON WORKS, APPLIED RISK OMAHA

This case involves an applicant seeking additional compensation for serious and willful misconduct by his employer, Hi-Tech Iron Works, following an industrial injury. The employer's petition for reconsideration of the administrative law judge's (WCJ) award was denied. The Board found substantial evidence supported the WCJ's determination that the employer knew an unsafe rope was being used for heavy lifting and directed employees to proceed despite the probable risk of serious injury. The employer's arguments regarding a Cal-OSHA report and the presence of management were rejected based on credibility findings and the evidence presented.

Serious and willful misconductLabor Code Section 4553inadequate equipmentpulley and ropeunsafe work environmentmanaging representativeknowledge of dangerdisregard of warningemployer liabilityworkers' compensation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cavallaro v. Corning Inc.

Rosario Cavallaro, a former employee of Corning Incorporated, brought an employment discrimination action alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Cavallaro was terminated in 1995 after repeatedly refusing to wear steel-toed safety shoes, a new company requirement based on OSHA standards, citing pain in his right foot. The Court granted Corning's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The court found Cavallaro's claims time-barred as his EEOC charge was filed over 300 days after he knew of the alleged discriminatory conduct, and rejected his "continuing violation" argument. His disparate impact claim was also dismissed for not being reasonably related to his EEOC charge. Furthermore, the court determined Cavallaro failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, concluding that his inability to wear safety shoes did not constitute a "disability" under the ADA, as it did not substantially limit a major life activity like walking or working generally, nor did Corning regard him as disabled. Finally, Cavallaro failed to show pretext for the non-discriminatory reason for his termination (failure to follow safety rules) or establish a causal link for his retaliation claim.

Americans with Disabilities ActEmployment LawDisability DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsEEOC ExhaustionDisparate ImpactSubstantial LimitationMajor Life Activities
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Slesin v. Administrator, Occupational Safety & Health Administration

Louis Slesin filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking documents from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the regulation of nonionizing radiation. OSHA released some documents but withheld portions of others, citing Exemption 5 of FOIA. Slesin cross-moved for an in camera inspection of the redactions and for summary judgment. District Judge Leval denied Slesin's cross-motion and granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court found that the redacted materials, which included staff opinions, recommendations, and internal timetables related to OSHA's deliberative process for developing new health standards, were properly withheld under Exemption 5, which protects internal agency communications reflecting deliberative or policy-making processes. The judge concluded that OSHA had adequately demonstrated that the excised material fell within the lawful exemption.

FOIAExemption 5Deliberative Process PrivilegeSummary JudgmentOccupational Safety and Health AdministrationNonionizing RadiationRegulatory StandardsAgency DeliberationsInformation DisclosureGovernment Transparency
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2005

Claim of Horton v. Salt

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that reduced penalties against the employer and its carrier for late benefit payments. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially assessed a penalty of 20% of the late payments plus six $300 assessments. The Board agreed on late payments but reduced the penalty to only one $300 assessment, interpreting Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (1) (e) as allowing a single $300 assessment per "instance" of application. The Court found the Board's interpretation not irrational but noted its inconsistency with prior Board decisions on similar facts without providing an explanation. Consequently, the Court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationLate Payment PenaltiesStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAgency PrecedentArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewRemandWorkers' Compensation BoardEmployer Obligations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 1990

People v. Pymm

This case examines whether federal regulation of workplace safety under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) preempts New York State's authority to criminally prosecute employers for conduct that results in unsafe working conditions. The corporate defendants, Pymm Thermometer Corporation and Pak Glass Machinery Corporation, along with their executives William Pymm and Edward Pymm, Jr., were convicted of various criminal charges, including conspiracy, assault, and reckless endangerment, stemming from severe mercury contamination at their Brooklyn facilities which caused neurological damage to an employee. The Trial Justice initially set aside the verdict, citing federal preemption, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's ruling, concluding that OSHA does not expressly or impliedly preempt state criminal prosecutions for employer conduct, emphasizing that state criminal laws serve distinct purposes of punishment and deterrence beyond OSHA's regulatory standards.

PreemptionOSHAWorkplace SafetyCriminal ProsecutionMercury PoisoningEmployer LiabilityState LawFederal LawHazardous ConditionsCorporate Crime
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 295 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