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. 2017 NY Slip Op 06419 [154 AD3d 139]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2017

Matter of 91st St. Crane Collapse Litig.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed consolidated wrongful death actions stemming from a 2008 crane collapse in Manhattan, which caused the deaths of Donald Christopher Leo and Ramadan Kurtaj. Plaintiffs, including Maria Leo and Xhevahire Sinanaj, sued James F. Lomma and his companies (J.F. Lomma, Inc. and New York Crane & Equipment Corp.) alleging negligence and reckless conduct related to a defective crane bearing. The court affirmed the jury's decision to pierce the corporate veil and to preclude a defense expert, finding Lomma personally liable due to his actions. However, the appellate court significantly reduced the jury's substantial awards for preimpact terror, conscious pain and suffering, and punitive damages, deeming them excessive. The judgment was modified, contingent on the plaintiffs stipulating to the reduced amounts.

Crane CollapseWrongful DeathCorporate Veil PiercingPunitive DamagesExpert Testimony PreclusionNegligenceConstruction AccidentConscious Pain and SufferingPreimpact TerrorDefective Weld
References
33
Case No. CV-23-0192
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2024

Matter of Bonitto v. Vivid Mech. LLC

The claimant, a mechanic pipefitter, sustained a collapsed lung after inhaling fumes and hot steam while repairing an HVAC system at work in July 2021. He subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which the employer and carrier controverted, arguing a lack of causal relationship due to his smoking history and location of lung collapse. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, establishing the claim based on opinions from two treating physicians who found a causal relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding of a causally-related injury and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to preclude certain medical reports.

PneumothoraxCollapsed LungHVAC InjuryFume InhalationCausally-Related InjuryWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionMedical ReportsCross-ExaminationDeposition
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Valenti v. Penn Plax Plastics

The claimant, exposed to asbestos between 1965 and 1972, developed asbestosis, asbestos-related pleural disease, and lung cancer. His 1995 workers' compensation claim was denied by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board, which found his lung cancer causally related to asbestos exposure occurring before July 1, 1974, thus falling under the 'dust disease' rule requiring total disability for compensation. The claimant appealed, arguing lung cancer is not a dust disease. The appellate court reversed and remitted the decision, clarifying that while lung cancer itself is not a dust disease, the pre-1974 restriction applies if it's causally related to a dust disease like asbestosis. The court noted the Board failed to make a specific finding on this causal link.

asbestos exposurelung cancerasbestosisworkers' compensationdust diseasetotal disabilitypartial disabilitycausationremittalappellate review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Holden v. Central Foundry Co.

The claimant, a 58-year-old foundry worker, developed emphysema after prolonged exposure to toxic fumes at work, leading to his collapse and subsequent partial disability in 1975. Conflicting medical opinions arose regarding the causal link between his occupational environment and the aggravation of a dormant lung condition. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found a causally related occupational disease, a decision later amended to specifically state that his employment aggravated a pre-existing dormant lung disease, causing disability. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing the Board did not decide on the preponderance of medical evidence. However, the court found substantial evidence in the record, particularly Dr. Miller's testimony, to support the Board's determination, thus affirming the decision.

Occupational diseaseEmphysemaToxic fumesFoundry workerCausationAggravation of pre-existing conditionMedical evidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate reviewDisability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2011

East 51st Street Crane Collapse Litigation v. Lincoln General Insurance

This Supreme Court order addresses an insurance coverage dispute stemming from a 2008 crane collapse in Manhattan, which led to multiple claims against the property owner, East 51st Street Development Company, LLC. The primary conflict involved insurance companies Lincoln General, AXIS Surplus, and Interstate Fire and Casualty regarding their duty to defend East 51st Street and reimburse Illinois Union Insurance Company for defense costs. Initially, the Supreme Court granted various motions for summary judgment, establishing duties to defend and determining policy priority. However, the appellate court modified the order, denying Lincoln General's assertions of excess coverage and declaring Lincoln General primarily obligated to provide coverage to East 51st Street. Other aspects, such as AXIS and Interstate's duty to share defense costs, and East 51st Street's status as an additional insured, were affirmed.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendDefense Costs ReimbursementPrimary CoverageExcess CoverageSummary Judgment MotionAdditional InsuredCrane Collapse LitigationPolicy InterpretationInsurance Policy Limits
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2005

United States v. DiPietro

During jury selection for a multi-defendant case, defendant Nicola Murdocca, who is undergoing chemotherapy for lung cancer, suffered a dramatic medical collapse in the courtroom. This incident, involving audible moaning, foaming at the mouth, and Murdocca yelling about his cancer, caused pandemonium and drew attention from jurors, other defendants, and defense counsel. Paramedics were called, and Murdocca was later discharged from the hospital after being treated for dizziness. The Government requested a new jury selection, citing contamination. The Court granted Murdocca's severance application on medical grounds and dismissed the existing jury pool, deeming them unable to be impartial due to the traumatic events and certain courtroom interactions.

Jury selectionMistrialDefendant illnessSeveranceJury impartialityCourtroom incidentChemotherapyLung cancerDue processJudicial discretion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2011

Claim of Gillard v. Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc.

The employer and its third-party administrator appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying their claim for reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for death benefits paid to a claimant. The claimant's husband, who had a workers' compensation claim established for permanent partial disability due to asbestos-related pleural disease, later died from lung cancer and congestive heart failure. The employer sought reimbursement, arguing a link between asbestosis and lung cancer, but the Board denied this, stating the original claim was not established for asbestosis and that the request to reopen was untimely. The Board further found no proof connecting asbestosis to the lung cancer. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that the reopening request was untimely and that there was no causal link shown between asbestosis and the lung cancer.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursementAsbestosisLung CancerCausal RelationshipTimelinessDeath BenefitsAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2017

Byrge ex rel. Estate v. Premium Coal Co.

Reddin Byrge's widow, as the plaintiff, initiated a lawsuit to enforce a 20% additional compensation on overdue black lung benefits against Premium Coal Company, Inc. Reddin Byrge had been awarded black lung benefits by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in January 2013, with the order becoming effective upon filing in February 2013. Despite this, Premium Coal Company appealed the decision through various levels without obtaining a stay of payment, failing to make timely benefit payments. The Black Lung Disability Trust Fund covered interim payments during this period. The plaintiff argued that, according to 33 U.S.C. § 914(f) and 20 C.F.R. § 725.607, the defendants were liable for the 20% additional compensation and interest due to their failure to pay benefits within ten days of them becoming due. The defendants contended that the Longshore Act's penalty provision should not apply to black lung claims, arguing it was punitive, untimely, and that the Department of Labor's regulations were an unlawful departure from the statute. The Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the ALJ's order was effective in February 2013, creating an immediate payment obligation, and that the additional compensation and interest were automatically incurred due to the defendants' non-compliance and lack of a stay. Subsequently, the Court denied the defendants' motion to alter or amend the judgment, reaffirming its prior findings and reasoning.

Black Lung Benefits ActLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActSummary JudgmentAdditional CompensationInterest CalculationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Law Judge DecisionBenefits Review BoardSixth Circuit Court of AppealsTimely Payment
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2003

Gabriel v. Boldt Group, Inc.

Plaintiffs appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, which denied their cross motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff, Raun Duval Gabriel, a construction worker, was injured when a defective hoisting apparatus collapsed while he and a coworker were attempting to lift a heavy metal insert. The cross member holding the pulley collapsed, striking the plaintiff with the pulley and rope. The Appellate Division concluded that a defective hoist, collapsing during use, constitutes a falling object under Labor Law § 240 (1), thus entitling plaintiffs to partial summary judgment on liability.

Labor Law § 240(1)Construction InjuryHoisting Equipment FailureFalling Object DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReversalWorkplace AccidentAbsolute LiabilityScaffolding LawDefective Device
References
1
Case No. ADJ8222509
Regular
May 12, 2015

SARAI CRUZ CANSECO vs. NEW DESSERTS, INC., WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether an employee's psychiatric injury claim is barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which typically requires six months of employment, unless the injury resulted from a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition." The applicant, employed for less than six months, injured her wrist and ankle when a bakery cart collapsed. The majority affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the cart's collapse constituted a sudden and extraordinary event that did not bar the psychiatric claim. The dissenting commissioner argued the collapse was an unforeseen accident but not extraordinary enough to bypass the six-month rule, differentiating it from truly sudden and extraordinary events.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix-month employment rulebakery cart collapseindustrial injurycompensable consequenceroutine employment eventoccupational hazardno-fault system
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 484 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