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. ADJ7269700
Regular
Jun 05, 2014

FELIX LUPERCIO vs. COAST IRON STEEL CORPORATION, ZURICH

This case, Felix Lupercio v. Coast Iron Steel Corporation, concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The petitioner has officially withdrawn this petition. Consequently, the Board has issued an order dismissing the petition. The dismissal is based solely on the petitioner's withdrawal of their reconsideration request.

LupercioCoast Iron SteelZurichPetition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ7269700Van NuysMedibil Services
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Computerized Steel Fabricators, Inc.

The reorganized Chapter XI debtor, Computerized Steel Fabricators, Inc., initiated a motion to hold Pension Fund Iron Workers Local 455 in contempt. Computerized argued that its Chapter XI confirmation order discharged any potential withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA), which the Pension Fund was attempting to collect post-confirmation. However, the court determined that Computerized's collective bargaining agreement was not rejected during bankruptcy and remained in effect, and thus the withdrawal liability arose in June 1982, post-confirmation, when Computerized ceased operations. The court held that this post-confirmation claim was not provable or dischargeable under the Bankruptcy Act and that the MPPAA's application was constitutional and not retroactive. Consequently, the application to hold the Pension Fund in contempt was denied.

BankruptcyChapter XIContemptMPPAAERISAWithdrawal LiabilityCollective Bargaining AgreementPost-confirmation ClaimsDischargeExecutory Contract
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nelson v. Sweet Associates, Inc.

A building inspector, employed by the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, sustained injuries after tripping over handrails in a dimly lit stairwell at a construction site. He subsequently initiated an action against the general contractor, Sweet Associates, Inc., and subcontractors Stone Bridge Iron & Steel, Inc., and Fast Trek Steel, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of the Labor Law. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial regarding common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, citing unresolved factual disputes concerning the visibility of the hazard and the defendants' control over the work. However, the appellate court reversed the decision concerning the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, dismissing it on the grounds that the plaintiff, as an inspector for the owner, was not protected by that specific statute.

Building Inspector InjuryConstruction Site AccidentCommon-law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary Judgment MotionSubcontractor LiabilityHazardous ConditionDuty to Control WorkScope of Labor Law Protection
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramales v. Pecker Iron Workers of Westchester, Inc.

Pecker Iron Workers of Westchester, Inc. appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to Christ Fellowship Baptist Church and Myler Church Building Systems, Inc., on their cross-claim for contractual indemnification. The appeal concerned an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The appellate court reviewed the contractual indemnification provision, finding that the church defendants established their prima facie burden. Pecker Iron Workers failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the accident was caused by the negligence of its subcontractor, River Steel Corp. Consequently, the Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment for contractual indemnification was affirmed.

contractual indemnificationsummary judgmentpersonal injurynegligenceappealindemnification provisionsubcontractor liabilitythird-party claimtort lawNew York law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jara v. Strong Steel Door, Inc.

Carlos Huerta, an undocumented worker, sued Strong Steel Door, Inc., and David Wei, claiming they failed to pay him the prevailing wage required by public works contracts. Strong Steel Door had terminated Huerta's employment after discovering he provided false documentation. Strong Steel Door sought summary judgment, arguing the employment contract was illegal due to the false documentation and that Huerta was precluded from recovery by the doctrine of 'unclean hands.' The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment was affirmed. The appellate court held that neither the contract nor the work performed was illegal, and Strong Steel Door was not injured by Huerta's false documentation as they received the bargained-for labor. Additionally, Strong Steel Door failed to meet its burden of proof regarding payment of the prevailing wage.

breach of contractsummary judgmentprevailing wageundocumented workerillegal contract defenseunclean hands doctrineImmigration Reform and Control Actemployment lawappellate reviewcontract enforceability
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hinton v. Acme Steel & Malleable Iron Works

Claimant, an employee of Acme Steel & Malleable Iron Works from 1950-1970, developed silicosis due to dust exposure. His initial workers' compensation claim in 1970 was denied due to only partial disability. In 1980, the case was reopened as his condition worsened to total disability. After numerous hearings and appeals, the Workers' Compensation Board found claimant totally disabled by silicosis causally related to his employment, with a disablement date of May 30, 1979. The Board held Acme, self-insured in 1970 (last exposure date), liable over the State Insurance Fund (Acme's insurer in 1979). Acme and the Special Funds Conservation Committee appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions regarding occupational disease, causation, and coverage, finding ample support in medical testimony.

SilicosisOccupational DiseaseTotal DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsReopened ClaimDate of DisablementEmployer LiabilitySelf-InsuranceSpecial Disability FundMedical Evidence
References
13
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06230 [164 AD3d 1425]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2018

Hill v. Mid Is. Steel Corp.

The plaintiff, Danny Hill, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted summary judgment to Mid Island Steel Corp. in a personal injury action. Hill sustained injuries using a telescoping lift owned by Mid Island Steel Corp. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Mid Island Steel Corp., finding it was not an owner, contractor, or agent. However, the court modified the order, reinstating the common-law negligence claim, as Mid Island Steel Corp. failed to prima facie establish the lift was not in a defective condition.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Defective EquipmentTelescoping LiftAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilitySafe Place to Work
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00995 [191 AD3d 526]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2021

Gjeka v. Iron Horse Transp., Inc.

Martin Gjeka was injured in a traffic accident at a construction site, falling into an unguarded trench after being struck by a tractor-trailer driven by Michael Busch. The lawsuit involved Martin Gjeka and Drite Gjeka as plaintiffs, and Iron Horse Transport, Inc., Michael Busch, 108-11 East 116th Street LLC, and Re-Steel Supply Company, Inc. as defendants. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court judgment, vacating awards for past pain and suffering, past loss of consortium, and future medical expenses. A new trial was ordered for the vacated awards unless the plaintiffs stipulated to a reduction of damages, and the court otherwise affirmed the judgment. The court upheld the jury's apportionment of 95% fault to 108-11 East 116th Street LLC and 5% to Michael Busch, as well as the awards for past and future lost earnings.

Personal InjuryVehicular AccidentConstruction Site AccidentVicarious LiabilityLabor LawWorkers' CompensationDamagesPain and SufferingLoss of ConsortiumMedical Expenses
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Old Country Iron Works, Inc. v. Iron Workers Locals 40, 361 & 417 of the International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers Union Security Funds

This labor-management dispute began with Old Country Iron Works, Inc. seeking to stay arbitration initiated by Local 361, claiming its collective bargaining agreement was solely with Local 40. After the case was removed to federal court, Old Country moved for remand, while the unions cross-moved for summary judgment to compel arbitration. The District Court denied Old Country's remand motion, asserting federal jurisdiction due to the dispute's reliance on interpreting the collective bargaining agreement under the Taft-Hartley Act. However, the court also denied the unions' summary judgment motions without prejudice, citing uncertainties regarding the need for an arbitration order and the scope of the arbitration agreement concerning potential jurisdictional issues. The parties were subsequently directed to engage in settlement discussions.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationRemoval JurisdictionTaft-Hartley ActSection 301Summary JudgmentMotion to RemandFederal Common LawJurisdictional Dispute
References
20
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
Showing 1-10 of 491 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