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

Cobo v. City of New York

The case involves a plaintiff who sued Sara Lighting Inc., the owner of premises at 140 Bowery, after allegedly tripping on an uneven sidewalk. The plaintiff claimed Sara Lighting Inc. was liable due to either special use of the sidewalk by its lessee, Lite Elite Company (who employed the plaintiff), or because Sara Lighting Inc. performed faulty repairs. The appellate court reversed the denial of summary judgment for Sara Lighting Inc., finding no evidence that the owner had a special use of the sidewalk or had undertaken the repairs. The court reiterated that an owner is not responsible for public sidewalk conditions unless they create the defect or use the sidewalk for a special purpose, a burden the plaintiff failed to meet. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint dismissed.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySidewalk MaintenanceOwner LiabilitySpecial Use DoctrineWorkers' Compensation BarAppellate ReviewComplaint DismissalNegligenceReal Property Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2002

Claim of Speer v. Wackenhut Corp.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for mental depression, alleging it resulted from being removed from a security guard position by their employer. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled the injury non-compensable under Workers' Compensation Law § 2 (7), deeming it a direct consequence of lawful personnel decisions. The claimant subsequently filed applications for full Board review and reconsideration, both of which were denied by the Board. This appeal concerns the denials of those applications. The court dismissed the appeal from the May 1, 2002 denial as untimely and affirmed the December 11, 2002 denial, finding that the Board did not abuse its discretion by not requiring transcription of oral arguments before rendering its decision.

Workers' CompensationMental DepressionStress-related InjuryPersonnel DecisionsReconsideration DenialFull Board ReviewAppellate ProcedureTimeliness of AppealOral Argument TranscriptionAdministrative Discretion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bush v. Mechanicville Warehouse Corp.

This case involves an appeal from the denial of a third-party defendant's (Yankee One Dollar Stores, Inc.) motions for summary judgment against a defendant (Mechanicville Warehouse Corp.). The plaintiff, Bush, was injured at work and sued Mechanicville, who then brought a third-party action against Yankee for indemnification. Yankee argued that plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and that there was no written contractual indemnification agreement. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the 'grave injury' claim, finding sufficient evidence of permanent total disability due to a traumatic brain injury. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment for contractual indemnification, ruling that Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 requires an *express written contract* of indemnification from the employer, which was not present between Yankee and Mechanicville.

Summary JudgmentThird-Party ActionWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryContractual IndemnificationBrain InjuryPermanent Total DisabilityHoldover TenantExpress AgreementAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C.

Nancy Kosakow sued her former employer, New Rochelle Radiology Associates, alleging FMLA violations and wrongful denial of severance pay under ERISA. The court previously found FMLA claims collaterally estopped but remanded the ERISA claim to the Plan Administrator for a determination on severance eligibility. The Administrator denied severance, finding Kosakow not "terminated" and, even if so, not entitled to severance. This court reversed the "not terminated" finding, stating Kosakow was terminated due to a reduction in force. However, the court affirmed the Administrator's denial of severance, concluding that the "where applicable" clause in the Plan gave the Administrator broad discretion and that Kosakow's circumstances did not warrant severance. The court found that the denial was not unreasonable, even when considering a severance payment made to another full-time employee under different circumstances.

ERISASeverance PayFMLATerminationSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewPlan Administrator DiscretionEmployee BenefitsReduction in ForcePolicy Manual
References
8
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00638
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2015

Williamson v. Ogden Cap Properties, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they lacked constructive notice of a defective mailbox panel, as they never inspected it. Their alleged lack of a key was not determinative, as a cursory inspection might have revealed the defect. The court also found that defendants failed to demonstrate their negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. Ultimately, plaintiff's testimony and a witness statement created an issue of fact regarding the defect's duration and discoverability, necessitating a trial.

Summary JudgmentConstructive NoticePremises LiabilityMailbox Panel DefectAppellate ReviewProximate CauseIssue of FactNegligencePostal Worker AccidentProperty Maintenance
References
5
Case No. ADJ2172104 (SAC 0326562)
Regular
Jan 15, 2015

THOMAS MEEKER vs. OREGON PACIFIC BUILDING PRODUCTS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over the validity of a utilization review (UR) denial for an applicant's requested prescription medication. Initially, the administrative law judge found the UR denial invalid because the reviewing physician did not examine all relevant medical reports. However, following the en banc decision in *Dubon II*, the Appeals Board reversed this finding. The Board ruled that under *Dubon II*, only untimely UR decisions are invalid; other defects, like incomplete medical review, must be addressed through the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process. Therefore, the UR denial was deemed valid as it was timely.

Utilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationProvigilDubon IIIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
14
Case No. ADJ9070770
Regular
Jun 10, 2014

OSCAR GARCIA-PICEN vs. TIGHT QUARTERS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior ruling ordering viscosupplementation injections for an applicant's knee injury. The WCAB found the prior ruling, which deemed the defendant's utilization review (UR) denial defective due to a missing signature, to be based on an incorrect premise as the UR physician did sign the report. However, the WCAB noted the UR physician may not have been aware of the applicant's second surgery, potentially rendering the UR defective for other reasons. The case was returned to the trial level for further consideration, with a dissenting opinion arguing the UR was demonstrably defective for omitting key medical history and the treatment should have been affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOscar Garcia-PicenTight QuartersInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ9070770Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationViscosupplementation injectionsUtilization Review (UR) denialDefective UR
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 1997

Squitieri v. City of New York

Plaintiff Neil Squitieri, a city sanitation worker, sued the City of New York after suffering carbon monoxide poisoning from a defective street sweeper manufactured by third-party defendant Elgin. The City, despite knowledge of the defect and ongoing litigation, disposed of the sweeper, which was crucial evidence. The City subsequently filed a third-party complaint against Elgin, alleging a design defect. Elgin moved for summary judgment, citing the City's spoliation of evidence as severely impairing its defense. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's denial of summary judgment, granting Elgin's motion and dismissing the City's third-party complaint due to the inexcusable prejudice caused by the City's destruction of key evidence.

Spoliation of EvidenceSummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintProduct LiabilityDesign DefectCarbon Monoxide PoisoningNegligenceDismissalAppellate ReviewCivil Procedure
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1997

Weber v. 1111 Park Avenue Realty Corp.

A carpenter, identified as the plaintiff, suffered injuries from an electric shock and fall while working in a cooperative apartment, leading to a lawsuit under New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and 241 (6). The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on liability against 1111 Park Avenue Realty Corp. under Labor Law § 240(1), arguing the accident was a gravity-related hazard. However, the defendants and third-party defendant Painting Plus Corporation also sought summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, asserting the plaintiff's activity was not covered by the statute, there was no elevation risk, and the ladder was not defective. The Supreme Court denied all motions, emphasizing that the question of whether a non-defective ladder provided proper protection and if a statutory violation was the proximate cause of injuries remains a factual issue for the jury. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, referencing precedents which hold that a fall from a non-defective ladder does not automatically establish liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and that a plaintiff's own actions could be the sole proximate cause.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentLadder FallElectric ShockProximate CauseGravity-Related HazardCarpenter InjuryConstruction AccidentWorker SafetyAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 1997

Job v. 1133 Building Corp.

The plaintiff appealed the denial of his motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) after sustaining injuries from a fall while dismantling a scaffold at a building owned by 1133 Building Corp. The defendant, 1133 Building Corp., and third-party defendants, Big Apple Wrecking and HRH Construction Corporation, opposed the motion. An affidavit from the plaintiff's foreman alleged that a safety belt was provided and the plaintiff was instructed to use it. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether the plaintiff was a 'recalcitrant worker.' The appellate court affirmed this denial, citing conflicting evidence on the availability and use of safety devices.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffold AccidentSummary JudgmentRecalcitrant WorkerSafety DevicesAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityConstruction SiteThird-Party Action
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,230 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