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

Alvia v. Teman Electrical Contracting, Inc.

Justice S. Miller issues a dissenting and concurring opinion regarding the dismissal of plaintiffs' Labor Law § 241 (6) claims. The dissent argues for granting summary judgment on liability against Parker East and Parker, asserting that Industrial Code regulation 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1) mandates protection for 'every hazardous opening,' and that plaintiff Humberto Alvia's injuries resulted from a violation of this unambiguous command. The opinion distinguishes the present case from prior rulings like D’Egidio and Piccuillo by noting the larger size and nature of the opening in question. While advocating for absolute liability against the owner and general contractor under Labor Law § 241 (6), the dissent concurs that the motion should be denied against the electrical subcontractor, Teman, due to unresolved factual questions regarding its control and authority over the work.

Labor LawHazardous OpeningSummary JudgmentLiabilityIndustrial CodeUnguarded OpeningAppellate DecisionSubcontractor LiabilityProximate CauseConstruction Site Safety
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jastrzebski v. North Shore School District

The provided text is a dissenting opinion by Bracken, J. P., with Krausman, J., concurring. The dissent argues against the majority's decision, which seemingly allowed the 'recalcitrant worker' defense to prevail for the defendant. Bracken, J. P., asserts that the facts of the current case are virtually identical to those in *Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply*, a precedent-setting case where the Court of Appeals explicitly rejected the recalcitrant worker defense under similar circumstances involving a fall from a ladder when alternative equipment (scaffolds) was available. The dissent criticizes the majority for distinguishing *Gordon* by recasting its facts, arguing that the reported facts in *Gordon* consistently indicated scaffold availability. Therefore, the dissenting judge votes to reverse the order and judgment, grant the plaintiff judgment as a matter of law on liability, and remit the case for a trial on damages.

Recalcitrant Worker DefenseLadder SafetyScaffold SafetyWorkplace InjuryEmployer LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionCourt of AppealsPrecedentLegal Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rought v. Price Chopper Operating Co.

This dissenting opinion argues against applying material hoisting regulations to the process of installing electrical wires by pulling them through conduit. The dissent asserts there is no evidence that the equipment used was lifting or suspending the wires. It highlights that the forklift was used to apply force to pull wires through a 90-degree angle, not to raise them. The opinion refers to the plaintiff's deposition, which clarified that the forklift applied force only after the wire was pushed to the turn, leading to tension that caused the wire to recoil when the rope broke. The dissent concludes that the equipment did not constitute "material hoisting equipment" under 12 NYCRR subpart 23-6, and therefore, the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action should have been dismissed. Stein, J., concurred.

material hoistingelectrical wiresforkliftconduit installationLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)summary judgmentdissenting opinionworkers protectionsafety regulations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2009

Lewis v. Caputo

This is a dissenting opinion regarding a false arrest claim. The plaintiff was arrested for criminal possession of a stolen laptop after a coworker recorded incriminating statements. The New York County District Attorney charged the plaintiff, but the charge was later dismissed. The plaintiff then sued Joseph Caputo, a deputy inspector general, for false arrest and was awarded $50,000 by a jury. The dissenting judge argues that the arrest was supported by probable cause based on circumstantial evidence, including the plaintiff's recorded conversation expressing anger at "snitches" and his tearing up a written statement. The dissenting opinion asserts that the jury's verdict should be reversed and the complaint dismissed because the evidence established probable cause as a matter of law.

False ArrestProbable CauseStolen PropertyCriminal PossessionCircumstantial EvidencePolice InvestigationJury VerdictCivil SuitNew York CountyDissenting Opinion
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ayala v. DRE Maintenance Corp.

The dissenting opinion concerns whether the Workers’ Compensation Board erred in finding a causal relationship between the decedent’s depression, resulting from a 1978 shooting accident, and his death in 1988. The dissent argues that substantial evidence supports the Board's finding. Dr. Hugo Morales, the decedent’s treating psychiatrist, clearly testified that while drug-alcohol abuse was the immediate cause of death, the decedent's severe and unabated 10-year depression was also a contributing factor. Dr. Morales’ medical opinion, meeting the "significant probability” and "rational basis” tests, indicated a clear relationship between the emotional status and death. Therefore, the dissenting justices would affirm the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationDepressionCausationDeath BenefitsMedical TestimonyPsychiatric EvaluationCausal RelationshipDrug-Alcohol AbuseDissenting OpinionTreating Physician
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Doersam v. Oswego County Department of Social Services

The dissenting opinion by Mikoll, J., with Levine, J., argues to affirm the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision that the claimant's heart attack was work-related. The dissent references a series of cases, including *Matter of Klimas v Trans Caribbean Airways* and *Matter of Masse v Robinson Co.*, establishing that work-related stress, without further physical incident, can constitute an accidental injury. The Board found the claimant's job consistently stressful, with specific incidents increasing this stress, exacerbating preexisting hypertension and worsening blood pressure, leading to a heart attack on November 26, 1982. The dissent contends that substantial evidence supports the Board's determination, citing testimony from the impartial specialist and the employer's medical expert which, despite not ruling out causality, acknowledged the role of stress. The opinion concludes that the Board rationally found that the claimant's demanding work and subsequent cardiac symptoms from a frightening incident caused the heart attack.

Heart AttackWork-Related StressCausalityDissenting OpinionSubstantial EvidenceOccupational InjuryHypertensionCardiac SymptomsBoard DecisionMedical Opinion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ochsner v. Gear

The case involves a claimant whose phlebitis developed gradually due to prolonged standing and walking on a concrete floor at work. The dissenting opinion argues that this condition does not qualify as a compensable 'accident' under workers' compensation law because it did not occur suddenly from an external force, nor did it result from 'unusual environmental conditions or events assignable to something extraordinary.' While acknowledging a causal link to the work environment, the dissent asserts that a concrete floor is not an unusual or extraordinary condition. Consequently, the dissent concludes that the Workers' Compensation Board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence and should be reversed. However, Cardona, P. J., concurs, and the decision is ultimately affirmed without costs.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseasePhlebitisGradual InjuryUnusual Environmental ConditionsDissenting OpinionCausal RelationshipWork EnvironmentCompensable AccidentPanel Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Tucker v. City of Plattsburgh Fire Department

Justice Egan Jr. dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that the Workers' Compensation Board abused its discretion in characterizing the medical expert's proof as speculative. The dissent focuses on the expert opinion of Michael Lax, who found a probable causal connection between the claimant's occupation as a firefighter, his exposure to carcinogenic materials, and his diagnosed prostate cancer. Lax's opinion was based on the claimant's 24 years of exposure, absence of other prostate cancer risk factors, and epidemiological studies. The dissent emphasizes that medical opinions do not require absolute certainty, only a reasonable probability supported by a rational basis. The dissent notes that at various administrative stages, a causal relationship was found, highlighting the lack of unanimity in the final Board decision.

Prostate CancerFirefighterCausal ConnectionMedical Expert OpinionSpeculative ProofWorkers' Compensation LawOccupational ExposureCarcinogenic MaterialsDissenting OpinionBurden of Proof
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Polmanteer v. Bobo

Justice Gorski's dissenting opinion argues against the majority's interpretation of Education Law § 2023 (1) concerning the funding of 'ordinary contingent expenses' in school district contingency budgets. The dissent contends that the 1997 amendment, which replaced 'may' with 'shall,' mandates the inclusion of expenses for interschool athletics, field trips, and other extracurricular activities when a budget is rejected by voters. Gorski disagrees with the majority's view that 'shall' applies only to the adoption of the contingency budget and levy, asserting it also mandates the inclusion of the enumerated expenses. The dissent emphasizes that the plain language of the statute, reflecting clear legislative intent, should be respected, even if it alters historical discretion given to boards of education. While concurring with some aspects of the majority's decision, Gorski believes the court erred in mandating a 'pro rata' inclusion of disputed items, advocating for the inclusion of previously deemed necessary funds subject to statutory limitations.

Education LawContingency BudgetSchool FundingStatutory InterpretationDissenting OpinionOrdinary Contingent ExpensesInterschool AthleticsExtracurricular ActivitiesLegislative IntentMandatory Funding
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miro v. Plaza Construction Corp.

This dissenting opinion argues for affirming partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, who was injured after falling from a ladder partially covered with fireproofing material. The dissent contends that a statutory violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and proximate cause were demonstrated as a matter of law, disputing the majority's view that the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause. The opinion highlights that the plaintiff complained about the defective ladder and there was no proof of readily available substitute ladders on site, distinguishing the facts from Robinson v East Med. Ctr., LP. It criticizes the majority's interpretation of 'readily available' as unworkable and an improper shift of responsibility from owners and general contractors to workers.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Ladder accidentProximate causeSole proximate causeSafety devicesConstruction site accidentDissenting opinionSummary judgmentAppellate reviewWorker safety
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 19,105 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