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. CV-23-1672
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2025

Matter of Vujeva v. Dairy Conveyor Corp.

The claimant, Jozo Vujeva, sustained injuries to both shoulders while working as a mechanic. Following permanency evaluations, a dispute arose regarding the schedule loss of use (SLU) percentages, with the claimant's physician and the carrier's consultant providing differing findings. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers' Compensation Board rejected the claimant's physician's findings due to non-compliance with the 2018 Workers' Compensation Guidelines for Determining Impairment, specifically regarding the use of a goniometer and repeat measurements. The Board instead credited the carrier's consultant's findings, awarding a 34.5% SLU of the right shoulder and a 27% SLU of the left shoulder. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence and that opinions not supported by objective findings consistent with the guidelines may have little evidentiary value.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Shoulder InjuryMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Range of Motion (ROM)GoniometerMedical Impairment GuidelinesEvidentiary ValueExpert Medical OpinionSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 1999

Siby v. A&Z Car Wash Sales

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed an order granting summary judgment to the defendant-respondent in a personal injury action. The plaintiff, an employee of a car wash, sustained injuries when his sleeve and hand were caught in a conveyor chain while attempting to correct an alignment issue. The court found no evidence that the defendant's installed wiring and electrical system caused the accident. The plaintiff admitted not deactivating the conveyor system despite accessible on/off switches and a lockout key. Expert testimony regarding insufficient shutdown time and the need for automatic stops was deemed irrelevant or conclusory, as the plaintiff had the means to fully deactivate the system. No industry or regulatory standards were provided to support claims of inadequate warning time.

Personal InjuryCar Wash AccidentSummary JudgmentConveyor SystemElectrical SystemWorkplace SafetyNegligenceCausationExpert TestimonyOn/Off Switch
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 1998

Martin v. A-1 Compaction, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted summary judgment to defendants Anthony Macera, Inc., and A-l Compaction, Inc., dismissing claims related to the wrongful death and personal injuries of a decedent. The decedent was fatally injured while attempting to collapse a wood chipper's conveyor belt by jumping on it. The plaintiff's cross-motions for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability were denied. The Appellate Court affirmed the order, ruling that Labor Law § 240 (1) applies to special hazards arising from elevated work sites or hoisted materials. The court found that the decedent's situation did not involve such special elevation risks, as the conveyor belt could have been folded from the ground.

Wrongful DeathPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionElevation RiskConveyor BeltWood ChipperSpecial HazardsLabor Law § 240 (1)
References
3
Case No. ADJ13228350
Regular
Jul 14, 2025

Paul Janikowski vs. Tesla Motors, Inc.

Applicant Paul Janikowski, a production associate at Tesla Motors, Inc., suffered severe leg and ankle injuries in 2019 due to a machine malfunction involving a conveyor and skids. He alleged serious and willful misconduct by Tesla, arguing that the company failed to provide adequate safety protocols and reduced the job from a two-person task to a one-person task, forcing him to cross an energized conveyor. Despite defendant's arguments that safety protocols were in place and the operation met industry standards, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) found that the applicant met his burden of proof. The Appeals Board denied Tesla's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding of serious and willful misconduct by the employer.

Serious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553Petition for ReconsiderationFindings Order and AwardWCJCal OSHAMercer-FraserJohns-ManvilleHawaiian PineappleDowden
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 1998

White v. ABCO Engineering Corp.

This case involves plaintiff Kenneth White, who was injured after reaching into a conveyor through a four-inch hole cut by an entity other than the defendant, ABCO Engineering Corp. White moved to reargue a previous summary judgment in favor of ABCO. The District Court, presided over by Judge Parker, revisited its earlier denial of ABCO's summary judgment motion. The court determined that the substantial alteration of the conveyor by a third party was the sole proximate cause of White's injury, overriding any alleged design defects by ABCO. Citing New York and New Jersey precedents, the court affirmed that a manufacturer's responsibility does not extend to preventing injuries caused by significant, unforeseeable modifications made by others. Consequently, ABCO's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Product LiabilityProximate CauseMaterial AlterationSummary JudgmentManufacturer's DutyForeseeabilityNew York LawNew Jersey LawConveyor BeltIndustrial Accident
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vanoni v. New York State Gas & Electric Corp.

This case addresses a motion for summary judgment concerning liability under Labor Law section 240. The plaintiff, an ironworker, was injured when he stepped from a scaffold onto a permanent coal conveyor, which he used for egress after installing a fire wall that blocked his original path on the scaffold. The core issue is whether the statute applies when an otherwise safe scaffold lacks safe egress, particularly if the egress path is a permanent structure used as an alternative to scaffolding. The court emphasized that the statute is to be liberally construed to protect workers, and implicit in the requirement for safe scaffolding is the provision for safe access and egress between work areas. Finding that the use of the coal conveyor as an egress route was foreseeable, and no alternative safety measures were taken, the court granted the motion for summary judgment as to liability, concluding that the owner or contractor failed to provide necessary safety devices.

Labor Law 240Scaffold SafetyWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentLiabilityEgressConstruction AccidentIronworkerForeseeabilitySafety Devices
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hanvey v. Falke's Quarry, Inc.

The plaintiff, injured while dismantling an elevated conveyor at a stone quarry, initiated legal action alleging common-law negligence and violations of the Labor Law. The Supreme Court granted defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, finding the plaintiff a 'recalcitrant worker.' On appeal, the court determined that the conveyor served as a scaffold, establishing a prima facie case under Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants argued plaintiff's misuse of equipment and refusal to use an available chain fall as safety devices. The Appellate Division found conflicting evidence regarding the availability and use of safety devices, thereby creating questions of fact. Consequently, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reversing the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and denying defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment to that extent, while affirming the order as modified.

Worker injuryScaffold accidentFall protectionRecalcitrant worker defenseSummary judgment appealLabor Law violationConstruction site safetyElevated work hazardSafety device failureAppellate review
References
11
Case No. CV-23-1672
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Jozo Vujeva

Jozo Vujeva, a mechanic, sustained shoulder injuries in March 2021, leading to a workers' compensation claim. His physician assessed a 40% schedule loss of use (SLU) for the right arm and 30% for the left, while the carrier's consultant found a 34.5% SLU for the right arm and 27% for the left. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the carrier's consultant's findings, rejecting the claimant's physician's report due to non-compliance with 2018 guidelines regarding goniometer use and repeat ROM measurements. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board was entitled to discount the claimant's physician's opinion due to methodological deficiencies and to credit the carrier's consultant's findings, which were supported by substantial evidence.

schedule loss of useshoulder injurymaximum medical improvementrange of motiongoniometer usageWorkers' Compensation Board decisionAppellate Division reviewmedical evidence admissibilityexpert medical opinionevidentiary support
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dupuy v. Hayner Hoyt Corporation

Plaintiff was injured when a concrete conveyor fell on him while he was standing on scaffolding. The court found that Labor Law § 240 (1) does not apply because the plaintiff did not fall from an elevated work site and the object causing injury was at the same level as the plaintiff. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action was reversed, and defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action was granted.

Scaffolding AccidentSummary JudgmentElevated WorksitePersonal InjuryConveyor BeltConstruction SafetyWorkers' Compensation LawLiabilityPremises LiabilityNegligence
References
2
Case No. ADJ3222915 (AHM 0088158)
Regular
May 24, 2010

ALFONSO LOPEZ vs. SUPERIOR FORGE, STATE COMPENSATION INSTITUTION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's award, finding the applicant's psychiatric injury claim is barred under Labor Code § 3208.3. The Board determined the applicant's act of kicking the conveyor belt, leading to his injury, was not a "sudden and extraordinary" employment condition, and he did not meet the six-month employment requirement for psychiatric injury claims. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine permanent disability without considering the psyche injury, and to address other issues like vocational expert fees and credits.

Labor Code Section 3208.3Sudden and extraordinary employment conditionPsychiatric injuryVocational rehabilitation expertPermanent disabilityReconsiderationFindings and AwardConsequential injuryDiminished future earning capacityLeBoeuf standard
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 17 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