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. CA 15-01122
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2016

KING, III, JOSEPH v. MALONE HOME BUILDERS, INC.

Plaintiff Joseph King III commenced this Labor Law action against Malone Home Builders, Inc., seeking damages for injuries from a fall through an unguarded stairwell during construction. King moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and to dismiss the defendant's special employee defense, which claimed workers' compensation as the sole remedy. The Supreme Court conditionally granted King's motion for liability but denied the dismissal of the special employee defense, citing a factual dispute. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The Appellate Division granted King's motion in its entirety, dismissing the defendant's special employee defense based on collateral estoppel from a prior Workers' Compensation Board determination, and affirmed the partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability for the plaintiff.

Labor LawWorkers' CompensationCollateral EstoppelSpecial Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentUnguarded StairwellPersonal InjuryEmployer Liability
References
11
Case No. 4964 157576/12
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2018

Bradley v. HWA 1290 III LLC

Edward Bradley, an elevator mechanic, died from electrocution while working in a building owned by HWA 1290 III LLC. His estate sued for wrongful death, alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law violations due to unsafe conditions, specifically inadequate lighting and uncovered electrical transformers. The Supreme Court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on these claims. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendants created the dangerous conditions or had actual or constructive notice of them. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. A dissenting opinion argued that issues of fact existed regarding the lighting, lack of transformer covers, and absence of a required helper.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathElectrocutionElevator AccidentWorkplace SafetyLabor Law Section 200Labor Law Section 241(6)Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. ADJ7669411
Regular
Jul 23, 2013

OSCAR HUERTA vs. HIGGINS & LOVETT CONSTRUCTION, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE CO.

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for a laborer injured on November 2, 2010, to his neck and back. The defendant disputes the finding of 51% permanent disability, primarily arguing that the panel qualified medical evaluator's (PQME) report was not substantial evidence. The Appeals Board has granted reconsideration to further review the PQME's lumbar impairment rating, specifically questioning whether "non-verifiable radicular complaints" sufficiently supported the DRE Category III rating. The Board has rescinded the prior award and returned the case for further development of the record.

Occupational Group 480Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)Dr. DawdyDRE Category IIIRadiculopathyLumbar ImpairmentSubstantial Medical EvidenceFurther Development of the RecordAmended Findings and AwardLumbar Spine
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2004

People v. Arotin

The case concerns an appeal by an unnamed defendant against an order from the Saratoga County Court, which classified him as a risk level III sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act. The defendant, previously convicted in Ohio for attempted gross sexual imposition and classified as a "sexually oriented offender," contested the New York classification upon his relocation, arguing the Full Faith and Credit Clause should compel New York to recognize his lower Ohio classification and that the evidence was insufficient for a Level III designation. The appellate court affirmed that states have the power to apply their own registration requirements, rejecting the Full Faith and Credit argument. However, it found that specific factors used to justify the level III classification, namely "deviate sexual intercourse" and "history of substance abuse," lacked clear and convincing evidence. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the order and remitted the matter to the County Court for reclassification.

Sex Offender Registration ActRisk Level ClassificationFull Faith and Credit ClauseRecidivismSexually Oriented OffenderAppellate ReviewClear and Convincing EvidenceOhio LawNew York LawSex Offender Assessment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Merrill Lynch Realty Associates, Inc. v. Burr

Merrill Lynch Realty Carll Burr, Inc. (MLRCB) and Merrill Lynch Realty Associates, Inc. (MLRA) sued Carll S. Burr III and other defendants over the use of the 'Burr' name in real estate. The dispute originated from a 1980 acquisition agreement and a subsequent employment contract with restrictive covenants. A previous settlement in 1984 also restricted Carll S. Burr III's use of the name. After MLRCB ceased using the 'Carll Burr' name, Carll S. Burr III established 'Carll Burr Realty'. The plaintiffs sought specific performance of the 1984 stipulation, damages, and a permanent injunction. The appellate court found that the lower court improvidently granted a preliminary injunction, citing sharply disputed facts regarding an alleged oral agreement to modify the contract and the plaintiffs' potential abandonment of the 'Burr' name. Additionally, the plaintiffs' sale of their real estate business undermined claims of irreparable injury, making preliminary injunctive relief unwarranted.

Preliminary InjunctionRestrictive CovenantsNon-compete ClauseOral ModificationContract DisputeTrade NameBusiness SaleIrreparable HarmBalancing of EquitiesDisputed Facts
References
8
Case No. ADJ7486243
Regular
May 23, 2011

WALTER ROSS III vs. SOUTHGATE PARKS AND RECREATION DISTRICT, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Applicant Walter Ross III against Southgate Parks and Recreation District and York Insurance Services Group. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition and the WCJ's report. Finding no grounds for removal, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning and denied the petition. The order officially denies Walter Ross III's petition for removal.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportDeny RemovalSouthgate Parks and Recreation DistrictYork Insurance Services GroupADJ7486243Oakland District OfficeDecision and OrderAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ9376675
Regular
Oct 20, 2015

JESSICA FIELD vs. INGLEWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT, ADMINSURE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant challenged the permanent disability rating, arguing the DRE method, rather than the ROM method, was improperly applied by the QME. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the QME's reliance on the DRE method, specifically Category IV, was supported by substantial medical evidence and properly applied under the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition. The defendant's contention that the rating was invalid under *Blackledge* was also rejected, as the QME report met legal and regulatory requirements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDENIEDINGLEWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENTADMINSUREPermanent DisabilityAMA Guides Fifth EditionDRE MethodLumbar Spine Category IVwhole person impairment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williamson v. Hohl Electro-Mation, Inc.

Plaintiff Joseph Williamson, III, was injured by receiving a 440-volt electrical shock after accidentally touching a live portion of an electric control panel at his place of employment. The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Factual issues remain to be resolved, including whether material modifications to the door handle disconnect mechanism on the control panel were made before or after the accident, whether the control panel's design was defective given the potential for alternative feasible designs providing greater worker protection, and whether the defendants failed to provide adequate warnings regarding the danger of live power to foreseeable users of the control panel.

Electrical ShockWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentDefective DesignWarning LabelsPersonal InjuryProduct LiabilityNegligenceFactual IssuesAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2001

Colon v. Aldus III Associates

This case involves an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to defendants in an action stemming from a plaintiff's decedent's fall from a scaffold. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted the defendants' motions, and this decision was unanimously affirmed. The court found that defendant Triboro Maintenance was a division of Property Resources Corp., and Property Resources Corp. was the decedent's employer, thus invoking Workers' Compensation Law for dismissal. Additionally, defendants Aldus III Associates (building owner) and NHP/PRC Management Company LLC (managing agent) were also dismissed because Property Resources Corp. was integrally related as a general partner and member, respectively, negating claims of separate enterprise despite different legal structures for other benefits.

Scaffold AccidentSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawEmployer ImmunityCorporate VeilLimited PartnershipJoint VentureBuilding OwnershipManaging AgentAppellate Affirmation
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06426 [222 AD3d 1154]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

Matter of Villagil v. Sauce Pizzeria III, LLC

Daniel Villagil, a cook, sustained lower back and left leg injuries from boiling water in 2019. His treating physician proposed a 20% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his left leg, citing maximum medical improvement and permanent impairment. However, the employer and carrier objected, leading a Workers' Compensation Law Judge to deny the award due to the physician's report lacking explanation for the SLU calculation or documentation of functional impairments. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, finding no credible medical evidence, which was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Division, Third Department. The court noted the conclusory nature of the physician's report, which failed to detail test results or specific impairments to support an SLU award.

schedule loss of useSLU awardpermanent impairmentmaximum medical improvementMMImedical evidencefunctional impairmentscarringgoniometerrange of motion
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 204 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