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

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
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 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

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

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
Case No. 2010 NY Slip Op 32441[U]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. American Re-Insurance

This dissenting opinion addresses the affirmation of a judgment that granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The dissent argues that a genuine triable issue of fact exists regarding whether a portion of a substantial settlement between United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (USF&G) and Western MacArthur was attributable to bad faith claims, which are purportedly not covered by the defendants' reinsurance treaty. The dissenting judge contends that the treaty's plain language excludes such extra-contractual liabilities and that the majority incorrectly applied the 'follow the fortunes' clause. Furthermore, the dissent cites findings from bankruptcy court and evidence from the underlying Western MacArthur v USF&G coverage litigation, both suggesting that bad faith damages were indeed part of the settlement. Therefore, the dissenting justice advocates for denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and vacating the judgment.

ReinsuranceBad Faith ClaimsSettlement AgreementSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationDissenting OpinionExtra-Contractual LiabilityFollow the Fortunes ClauseBankruptcy Court FindingsCoverage Litigation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Housing Development Fund Corp.

The dissenting opinion addresses a plaintiff's claim under Labor Law § 240 (1) for injuries sustained when metal plumbing pipes, standing vertically from the floor, toppled onto him during demolition work. The dissent argues that the majority errs by finding the case falls under the statute. Citing precedents like Misseritti, Narducci, and Melo, the dissenting judge asserts that the plaintiff's injuries were not the result of an elevation-related hazard contemplated by section 240 (1), as the base of the falling objects was at the same level as the plaintiff and his work site. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a specific, enumerated safety device would have prevented the accident. The dissent concludes that section 240 (1) should not apply under these circumstances and would affirm the Appellate Division's order.

Workers' CompensationLabor LawElevation HazardFalling ObjectSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDissenting OpinionStatutory InterpretationSafety DevicesConstruction Site
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramos v. Howard Industries, Inc.

This is a dissenting opinion in a products liability action concerning a transformer explosion, where the defendant, Howard Industries, Inc., moved for summary judgment. The central issue is the defendant's entitlement to summary judgment when the allegedly defective product was unavailable for inspection or testing. The dissenting judge argues that the defendant's expert evidence, which speculates on alternative causes while admitting the inability to prove a manufacturing defect without the product, is insufficient to meet their burden for summary judgment. The dissent distinguishes this case from Speller v Sears, Roebuck & Co. by highlighting the unique disadvantage faced by the plaintiff due to the product's unavailability in rebutting speculative theories. Therefore, the dissenting judge believes the Appellate Division's decision that the defendant failed to meet its burden should have been upheld, rather than reversed by the majority.

Products LiabilitySummary JudgmentExpert TestimonyProduct UnavailabilityCausationManufacturing DefectDissenting OpinionEvidentiary BurdenAppellate ReviewTrial Procedure
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laudisio v. Diamond D Construction Corp.

In this dissenting opinion, Judge Hurlbutt partially disagrees with the majority's decision. While agreeing that the Supreme Court incorrectly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the dissent asserts that the court rightly denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to strike an affirmative defense rooted in Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). The dissent argues that the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law should bar the plaintiffs' action if Joseph DiPizio, a principal of both the plaintiff's employer and the defendant, had indistinguishable responsibilities for safety. Furthermore, it suggests that the statute should apply to the extent the defendant’s liability is vicariously derived from DiPizio’s conduct. Therefore, the dissent advocates for modifying the order by denying the defendant’s motion and remitting the case to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further determination of independent liability.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusivity ProvisionsSummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseVicarious LiabilityCorporate VeilEmployer LiabilityPrincipalCo-employee NegligenceAppellate Dissent
References
9
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
Showing 1-10 of 18,980 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