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

Martinez v. 342 Property LLC

Defendant Flintlock Construction Services, LLC, a general contractor, hired Site Safety for site safety management. An unnamed plaintiff suffered an accident, leading to claims against Site Safety, including under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, as well as contractual indemnification claims by Flintlock. Site Safety moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked control over the work site. The court found that Site Safety's role was primarily advisory, with limited authority to stop unsafe work, and thus it lacked the necessary control to incur liability under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence. Additionally, the court dismissed Flintlock's contractual indemnification claim, noting the absence of evidence of negligence by Site Safety, which was a prerequisite for indemnification under their contract. The motion court's decision granting summary judgment to Site Safety was affirmed on appeal.

Summary JudgmentSite Safety ManagementGeneral Contractor LiabilityContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnityLabor Law § 200Negligence ClaimsControl of Work SiteAppellate DecisionConstruction Accident
References
10
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Fulton Sylphon Division, Robertshaw Controls Co.

Willie J. Johnson, a black male, filed a Title VII lawsuit against his employer, Fulton Sylphon Division of Robertshaw Controls Company, alleging racial discrimination regarding a denied transfer to the Numerical Control Department and subsequent retaliatory discharge. Johnson claimed he was denied promotion due to his race and fired in retaliation for his protected activities. The defendant argued that Johnson's excessive absenteeism, poor work performance, and lack of qualifications were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its decisions. The court found that Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, concluding he was not qualified for the transfer due to his consistent poor work record. Furthermore, his discharge was found to be a result of his ongoing absenteeism and uncooperative attitude, not retaliation. The court ruled in favor of the defendant.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliatory DischargeAbsenteeismPoor Work PerformancePrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas TestPretextStatistical Evidence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alonso v. Stanley Works, Inc.

Antonio Alonso sued his employer, The Stanley Works, Inc., alleging retaliatory discharge after his employment was terminated while on medical leave for a work-related injury, claiming it was due to his workers' compensation claim. Stanley Works moved for summary judgment, asserting Alonso was terminated under a uniformly enforced six-month leave of absence policy. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Alonso failed to provide evidence that his termination would not have occurred but for his workers' compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the uniform enforcement of a reasonable absence-control policy does not constitute retaliatory discharge under the Texas Labor Code.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentLeave of Absence PolicyUniform EnforcementTexas Labor CodeEmployment TerminationAbsence Control PolicyAppellate ReviewWorkplace Injury
References
4
Case No. CA 13-01845
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2014

JONES, JAMES W. v. COUNTY OF ERIE

Plaintiff James W. Jones was injured after falling from a tree while trimming branches on property owned by the County of Erie. The County had hired American Site Developers LLC (ASD) as a general contractor and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (MP) to monitor the work, with plaintiff's employer being a subcontractor. Plaintiff sued the County, ASD, and MP for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to all defendants, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the defendants lacked supervisory control over the plaintiff's work, which is a prerequisite for liability under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. The court also determined that the dangerous condition was inherent in the work itself, not created by the County.

Personal InjuryNegligenceLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityConstruction Site AccidentFall from TreeSupervisory ControlSafe Place to Work
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cuartas v. Kourkoumelis

The plaintiff was injured at a construction site on property owned by defendant Tomis Kourkoumelis when a manhole cover fell on his foot. The plaintiff and a co-worker were attempting to open the manhole cover with a crowbar. The plaintiff alleged Kourkoumelis directed him to clean debris from the retention tank. The Supreme Court denied Kourkoumelis's cross-motion for summary judgment regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, finding issues of fact about his supervision and control. The appellate court reversed the decision, stating there was no evidence of a dangerous condition with the manhole cover and Kourkoumelis's instruction did not demonstrate direction or control over the plaintiff's work. The court emphasized that landowner liability requires exercising supervision and control over the work or actual/constructive notice of a dangerous condition, or directing the manner of work, not just general supervisory authority. Consequently, the cross-motion was granted, and the complaint was dismissed against Tomis Kourkoumelis.

Construction AccidentLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceOwner LiabilitySupervision and ControlDangerous ConditionAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury Damages
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2015

Nicholas v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

This memorandum decision concerns appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County. The order partially granted summary judgment to WalMart Stores, Inc. regarding a Labor Law § 200 claim and common law negligence, while denying it to MLB Contractors, Inc. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's order. The court clarified that a general contractor or owner may be liable under common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 if they control the work site and have actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition causing worker injuries. It concluded that MLB Contractors, Inc. failed to meet its burden in showing it lacked control over the work site or notice of the dangerous condition.

Labour LawNegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityWorksite SafetyControl of WorksiteNotice of ConditionCommon LawLiability
References
3
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. 01-02-00542-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

Michelle Ramirez, Ind. & on Behalf of the Estate of Jesus Ramirez v. Worthington Contractors, Inc.

Michelle Ramirez, individually and on behalf of her deceased husband's estate and their three minor children, appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Worthington Constructors, Inc., Worthington Pavers, Inc., and David E. Worthington. This wrongful death action arose after Jesus Ramirez, a day laborer for Worthington's independent contractor, died from injuries sustained after falling from a pickup truck. Ramirez contended that Worthington retained control over the independent contractor and thus had a duty to provide a safe work environment for Ramirez. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Worthington owed no legal duty to Ramirez because he was not an employee and Worthington did not retain control over the independent contractor or his employee. The accident occurred after work was finished and off the work site, not as a result of an unsafe work environment.

Wrongful deathSummary judgmentIndependent contractorEmployer liabilityDuty of careRight to controlWorkplace accidentAppellate reviewTexas lawSubcontractor
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walsh v. Sweet Associates, Inc.

Plaintiff Gregory M. Walsh, an electrician, sustained a broken back after falling 30 feet from a tubular steel tower erected by the defendant, a prime contractor, at a construction site in the State Education Building in Albany. Plaintiff and his wife subsequently filed an action against the defendant, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting a lack of control over the plaintiff or his employer, while the plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment. Initially, the Supreme Court denied both motions, finding questions of fact. However, on appeal, the court determined that the defendant, acting as a prime contractor, did not possess the requisite authority to supervise or control the plaintiff's work or the overall worksite, a precondition for liability under the cited Labor Laws. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, affirming that control over one's own equipment does not equate to control over the work being performed.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPrime Contractor LiabilityWorksite SafetyControl of WorkStatutory ViolationPersonal InjuryFall from Height
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 12,028 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