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

Derion v. Buffalo Crushed Stone, Inc.

The plaintiff, a truck driver for Anastasi Trucking, Inc., a subcontractor on a construction project, sustained injuries when his dump truck hit a pothole on a roadway owned and maintained by the defendant. This occurred while he was en route to the defendant's quarry. The central legal question involved the applicability of Labor Law § 200, which codifies an owner's common-law duty to provide a safe workplace. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, determining that the plaintiff's complaint did not fall within Labor Law § 200 because the "safe place of work" envisioned by the statute does not extend to the roadway leading to the defendant's business. The order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, was unanimously affirmed.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkRoadwayPotholeConstruction ProjectSubcontractorCommon-law DutySummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionErie County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Klimczak v. General Crushed Stone Co.

Claimant, a welder, was discharged by his employer in June 1981 and sought restoration, alleging wrongful discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim under Workers' Compensation Law § 120. The Workers' Compensation Board found no causal connection between the claimant's compensation filing and his dismissal, determining that the employer was unaware of the claim at the time of discharge. The Board concluded that the dismissal was based on the claimant's absenteeism, which preceded his injury. This court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the record contained substantial evidence to support the determination and that the claimant failed to meet the burden of proving a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 120.

Workers' CompensationDiscriminationRetaliationWrongful DischargeAbsenteeismBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityEmployee RightsJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. ADJ2671439 (AHM 0097527)
Regular
Jul 16, 2008

WILLIAM DAVID SCOTT vs. DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SCRMA

This case concerns an applicant injured while employed as a utility worker who sustained industrial injuries to his back, pelvis, and internal systems. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify the employer's credit for benefits paid against a civil settlement, specifically amending the language to include benefits paid "directly to or on behalf of" the applicant. Ultimately, the employer must pay benefits until a $2,750,000 threshold is met before asserting a $500,000 credit, with all benefits paid to or for the applicant counting towards this threshold.

ReconsiderationDowney Unified School DistrictCid's TruckingUtility WorkerIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryPelvis InjuryInternal Systems InjuryNegligenceOrdinary Care
References
2
Case No. ADJ2023774
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

CHRISTOPHER CORBO vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns whether an applicant's severe crush injury to his left foot, involving a partial avulsion of the heel pad, constitutes an "amputation" under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(C) for purposes of extending temporary disability indemnity. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming its prior decision that the injury did not meet the definition of amputation. The Board clarified that "amputation" requires severance or removal of a limb or appendage, not merely a severe laceration or partial separation of tissue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 4656(c)(3)(C)AmputationTemporary DisabilityCrush InjuryAvulsionHeel PadCalcaneusCruz v. Mercedes-Benz of San Francisco
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 1994

Hamann v. City of New York

The plaintiffs appealed an order denying their motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially denied the motion. On appeal, the order was modified. Upon searching the record, partial summary judgment was granted to the defendant, the City of New York, dismissing the complaint's cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court reasoned that the injured plaintiff, Patrick Hamann, was crushed by a boulder during excavation in a trench, a hazard not related to elevation differentials as contemplated by the statute.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentElevation DifferentialExcavation AccidentBoulder InjuryAppellate DivisionWorkplace SafetyStatutory Interpretation
References
1
Case No. ADJ10426664
Regular
Apr 14, 2017

BEHDAD SEPANJ vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the award, but affirmed the finding that the applicant sustained an industrial injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The Board found the applicant's testimony credible regarding his commute, rejecting the defendant's "going and coming" rule defense. However, the Board agreed with the defendant that the initial award's specific list of injured body parts was premature. The amended award lists the specific injured body parts as spleen, left shoulder, chest, back, left scapula, ribs, pelvis, and right knee.

going and coming ruletransportation engineermotor vehicle accidenturological systemsneurological systemshead injuryright eye injurysplenectomyhospital discharge summarycredibility determination
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2006

Cruz v. Neil Hospitality, LLC

An iron worker, referred to as the plaintiff, suffered personal injuries while moving an an 800-pound steel beam on a construction site for Neil Hospitality, LLC. His left leg was crushed when the beam slid back down a dirt mound. The plaintiff sued under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied his motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion, dismissing his claims. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the court finding no elevation-related hazard under Labor Law § 240 (1) and deeming 12 NYCRR 23-2.3 (c) inapplicable to the circumstances.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentElevation-Related HazardSteel Beam InjuryWorksite SafetyNew York Labor Law 24012 NYCRR 23-2.3(c) Inapplicability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 1979

Orbon v. Pine Lane Poultry

Claimant, an employee for 12 years, sustained lower back and pelvis injuries on September 18, 1976, when a tractor he was operating toppled over. The accident occurred while he was attempting to extricate a coemployee's truck from mud on the employer's premises, assisting the coemployee in collecting firewood. Although operating the employer's equipment without permission was a strict rule and not part of his usual duties, the Workers’ Compensation Board found the injuries compensable. The appellate court affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's ruling, citing implied consent from a supervisor and potential benefits to the employer through premises clearance and improved employee morale.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentAccidental InjuryTractor OperationCoemployee AssistanceEmployer Rules ViolationImplied ConsentEmployee MoraleSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02155
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

Matter of Keeney v. Andrews

Claimant Phyllis Keeney, a home health aide, sustained injuries to her pelvis and left wrist in June 2018. Following her request for further action, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed her claim for causally-related back and hip injuries. Claimant's subsequent application for administrative review by the Workers' Compensation Board was denied because her counsel failed to provide the required attestation of electronic signature, as per the Board's emergency relief guidelines. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the application due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.

Electronic Signature AttestationAdministrative Review DenialProcedural Non-ComplianceWorkers' Compensation Board AuthorityAppellate Division AffirmationCOVID-19 Emergency ReliefForm RB-89Judiciary Law § 43112 NYCRR 300.13Home Health Aide Injury
References
9
Case No. ADJ1817589
Regular
Mar 09, 2012

MARIAM HASAN vs. GUADALUPE HOMES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding of permanent total disability for the applicant. This decision was based on substantial medical evidence from Dr. Berman, who concluded the applicant was totally disabled due to multiple injuries, including her pelvis. The defendant's argument regarding apportionment to the low back was found insufficient to overturn the total disability finding, as other injuries also contributed significantly to the applicant's inability to compete in the open labor market. The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's report, finding the medical expert's opinion sufficient despite the lack of vocational or urologist reports.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent total disabilityAgreed Medical EvaluatorApportionmentSedentary workWheelchairVocational rehabilitation expertIndustrial injurySubstantial medical evidencePetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 38 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