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. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1996

Del Vecchio v. State

The claimants, Salvatore and Karen Del Vecchio, appealed an order from the Court of Claims which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing that claim. Salvatore Del Vecchio was injured while rescuing a co-worker who fell into Jamaica Bay during bridge construction, arguing his back injuries were a result of the incident caused by unsecured planking and lack of safety devices. The appellate court affirmed the order, holding that Labor Law § 240 (1) provides "exceptional protection" for specific gravity-related accidents (falling from height, struck by falling object) and does not extend to a rescuer like Del Vecchio, who did not sustain a direct gravity-related injury. The majority concluded that the "danger invites rescue" doctrine is not applicable to Labor Law § 240 (1) claims due to the statute's absolute liability and limited scope, which should not be expanded. A dissenting opinion argued that the doctrine should apply to workers injured while rescuing someone imperiled by a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation, emphasizing the statute's purpose of protecting workers and imposing strict liability.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Danger Invites Rescue DoctrineAbsolute LiabilityGravity-Related InjurySummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentElevated WorksiteProximate CauseAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bonilla v. State

Claimant, injured while sandblasting a bridge beam, appealed an order from the Court of Claims regarding his Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) claims. The Court of Claims had denied the claimant's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and granted the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss that claim, concluding no elevation-related risk. The appellate court modified this order, ruling that the claimant's work did expose him to an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors for failing to provide proper safety devices. However, the appellate court found that neither party had made a prima facie showing for summary judgment or dismissal on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. This was due to unresolved factual issues concerning whether the claimant could have affixed his lanyard to a standing object as a proper safety measure, or if the lanyard itself failed to provide proper protection, thereby leaving the question of proximate cause open.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Elevation-Related RiskSummary JudgmentProximate CauseWorker SafetyAppellate ReviewBridge ConstructionSafety EquipmentAbsolute Liability
References
11
Case No. CV-24-1460
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of Bonnie Blake

Claimant Bonnie C. Blake appealed an amended decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, which ruled she needed to show ongoing labor market attachment for both her 2000 and 2017 injury claims. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, reviewed the applicability of the 2017 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w). The court found that due to her return to full-time employment at pre-injury wages at the time of her 2011 permanent partial disability classification for Claim No. 1, and no finding of voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, the 2017 amendment applied retroactively. Consequently, the claimant was not required to demonstrate ongoing labor market attachment for Claim No. 1 to be entitled to indemnity benefits. The Court modified the Board's decision, reversing the requirement for labor market attachment in Claim No. 1 and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w)Labor Market AttachmentPermanent Partial DisabilityRetroactive ApplicationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesDue ProcessAppellate Division Third DepartmentWage-Earning CapacityIndemnity BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Board
References
14
Case No. 528032
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of IRA Jason Lucks, as Executor of the Estate of Julius Lucks, Deceased, Claimant

Julius Lucks suffered a work-related myocardial infarction in 1980, with liability initially against Continental Casualty Company (CNA) before being transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. After Julius's death in June 2013, his executor, Ira Jason Lucks, filed a claim for consequential death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that CNA was the proper carrier for the death benefit claim, citing the failure to raise the applicability of Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a prior to the January 1, 2014 cutoff date. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that for relief from the Special Fund under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a (1-a), both the accrual of the death benefit claim and the application for transfer of liability must occur before the January 1, 2014 deadline.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesTransfer of LiabilityAccrual DateCutoff DateCarrier LiabilitySection 25-aMyocardial InfarctionPermanent Partial Disability
References
3
Case No. 528566
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Christine Kelly (Kelly, Kevin (dec'd)

Claimant Christine Kelly filed a claim for death benefits after her husband's death, alleging it was causally-related to his established asbestos-related occupational disease. Liability for the original disability claim had been transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases in 2011. The employer argued the Special Fund should be liable for the death benefits claim. However, the Workers' Compensation Board and the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed that the death benefits claim was a new and distinct claim, accruing at the time of death in 2016. Therefore, its transfer to the Special Fund was precluded by Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a (1-a), as the Special Fund closed to new applications effective January 1, 2014, a ruling supported by Matter of Verneau v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, ruling that liability did not shift to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesDeath Benefits ClaimOccupational DiseaseAsbestosisCausally Related DeathLiability TransferStatutory Cut-off DateAppellate DivisionThird Judicial Department
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Derrickmen & Riggers Assoc. Local Union No. 197 of the International Ass'n of Bridge v. Local No. 1 Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman

This action was initiated by Local 197 against Local 1, alleging breach of contract based on violations of the Constitutions of the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) and the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York (BCTC), as well as their respective jurisdictional dispute resolution plans. Local 197 sought partial summary judgment to compel Local 1 to honor its contractual obligations and to rejoin the BCTC, from which Local 1 had withdrawn. Conversely, Local 1 sought summary judgment to dismiss the entire suit, arguing that Local 197 lacked standing as a third-party beneficiary and that the state law tort claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court determined that Local 197 was an incidental, not intended, beneficiary of the BCTD Constitution and National Plan, and that Local 1's disaffiliation from the BCTC removed its obligations to the New York Plan. Additionally, the court ruled that Local 197's state law claims for tortious interference were preempted by the NLRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

Labor LawJurisdictional DisputeBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentThird-Party BeneficiaryNLRA PreemptionUnion AffiliationCollective BargainingAFL-CIO ConstitutionLocal Union Rights
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2004

Thomas v. Fall Creek Contractors, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order denying his motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims. The appellate court modified the order, dismissing both claims. The court found that the temporary wooden stairs, from which the plaintiff fell, were under construction and the plaintiff was aware they were not bolted. Another set of completed stairs was available. The stairs did not break and were not defective, implying the plaintiff's actions were the sole cause of injury. Regarding the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, which relied on 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(4)(i) concerning portable ladders, the plaintiff conceded the specific 36-inch extension requirement was not applicable. Since no other regulation was cited, this claim was also dismissed.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentConstruction AccidentTemporary StairsSole Cause of InjuryLadder RegulationAppellate ReviewNew York CourtCPLR 3212(b)
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2005

Gonzalez v. Turner Construction Co.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability for that claim. The plaintiff was injured while shifting an 800-foot rope on a roof and was pulled forward, striking a beam. The Appellate Court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, determining that Labor Law § 240 (1) applies specifically to gravity-related hazards such as falling from a height or being struck by a falling object, and the plaintiff's alleged injuries did not arise from such a violation. The defendant successfully demonstrated, prima facie, that the claim did not fall under the purview of Labor Law § 240 (1), and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate DivisionKings CountyGravity-Related AccidentElevated Work SiteWorker SafetyStatutory InterpretationHazard Dismissal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 1995

Claim of Howell v. Langie Fuel Service

Claimant sustained two separate injuries, one in 1975 while employed by Langie Fuel Service (claim No. 1) and another in 1983 while employed by Medina Memorial Hospital (claim No. 2). Claim No. 2 was initially barred by the Statute of Limitations. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied claimant's request to reconsider its February 10, 1992 decision regarding claim No. 2 but reversed the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's decision in claim No. 1, finding a causally related permanent total disability after December 1, 1986, with half chargeable to claim No. 1. The Special Fund for Reopened Cases and Medina appealed this decision, and the claimant cross-appealed the denial of reconsideration for claim No. 2. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration and substantial evidence to support the Board's determination of causal relationship and equal apportionment of disability.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Total DisabilityCausally Related DisabilityApportionment of LiabilityStatute of LimitationsMedical EvidencePsychiatric DisorderConversion DisorderJudicial ReviewBoard Discretion
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 19,383 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