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. ADJ7174342
Regular
Jul 29, 2010

ALVARO CARRILLO vs. CP MANUFACTURING, ZENITH INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was sought from a non-final procedural order, not a final decision on substantive rights. The WCAB also denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding their objection to venue untimely. The defendant failed to file their venue objection within the 30-day window and did not provide the required sworn statement regarding receipt of notice. Therefore, venue remains in Los Angeles, though a future venue change for good cause is not precluded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Denying Change of VenueFinal OrderProcedural OrderLabor Code section 5501.5(c)Appeals Board rule 10410Untimely ObjectionVenue
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03905 [218 AD3d 733]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2023

Cruz v. 451 Lexington Realty, LLC

Plaintiff Johnny Cruz, a laborer, sustained injuries when ductwork fell on him while clearing debris during a building demolition. He initiated an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against 451 Lexington Realty, LLC, and Regent Development Associates, LLC. The defendants initiated a third-party action against City Limits Group, Inc., and City Limits, in turn, sued Flintlock Construction Services, LLC. The Supreme Court denied Cruz's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law claims and granted the defendants' cross-motions to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding Labor Law § 240 (1) inapplicable as the ductwork was part of the preexisting structure and not being actively worked on, and Labor Law § 241 (6) inapplicable as the area was not normally exposed to falling objects. Furthermore, Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims were dismissed because the defendants did not exercise supervision or control over the plaintiff's work methods.

Personal injuryLabor LawSummary judgmentFalling objectConstruction accidentWorkplace safetyDemolitionCommon-law negligenceIndemnificationAppellate review
References
20
Case No. ADJ9090412
Regular
Nov 21, 2014

, Applicant, , ABDUR SIKDER vs. , Defendants. LUXOR CAB COMPANY INC.; GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, upholding the judge's decision for a replacement QME panel. The defendant argued the applicant waived his right to a new panel by not objecting during the examination with Dr. Carpenter. The majority found that removal was not warranted as the defendant did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Commissioner Lowe dissented, arguing the applicant waived his right to object under the relevant rules by failing to do so during the examination.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelChiropracticLabor Code Section 4062.1WCJAdministrative Law JudgeGood CauseUnrepresented EmployeeTimeliness of Objection
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gill v. Samuel Kosoff & Sons, Inc.

The dissent in this case argues for granting summary judgment to the defendant and third-party defendant, dismissing the plaintiffs' Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Justice Mercure contends that plaintiff Clifford Gill's injuries did not stem from elevation-related hazards as defined by the Labor Law. Specifically, Gill was hoisting a load only six inches from the ground, was not struck by the load, and the "hoist" was on the same level, thus not a falling object. The dissent concludes Gill's injuries resulted from ordinary construction site perils rather than the specific elevation risks intended by Labor Law § 240 (1). Despite the dissent, the order was affirmed.

Labor Law § 240Summary JudgmentElevation RiskConstruction AccidentWorker SafetyDissenting OpinionStatutory InterpretationFalling ObjectPersonal InjuryAppellate Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Dunlap

In a criminal appeal, the defendant was tried for a forcible sexual attack. During the trial, two jurors were excused by the court over the defendant's objection. The first juror knew the defendant's mother through work and union membership, but stated it wouldn't affect his duties. The second juror, a supervisor at General Motors, felt uncomfortable due to potential union trouble, though he didn't know the defendant's mother. The appellate court found this to be an error, stating that a juror can only be excused if "grossly unqualified" or for substantial misconduct, a burden not met in this case. The court reversed the judgment and granted a new trial, concluding that there was no factual demonstration that the jurors were grossly unqualified.

Jury SelectionGrossly Unqualified JurorJuror DisqualificationImpartial VerdictNew Trial GrantedAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureForcible Sexual AttackJuror MisconductDefendant's Rights
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 1988

Seneca Dress Co. v. Bea-Jay Manufacturing Corp.

The plaintiff, a New York City garment manufacturer, sued the defendant, a Franklin County clothing contractor, for replevin of unfinished materials or their value, plus damages. The defendant counterclaimed for an artisan's lien under Lien Law § 180, seeking payment for labor on the materials. A jury found a contract existed, the plaintiff breached it by failing to guarantee payroll, and awarded the defendant $47,873 in damages. The plaintiff's subsequent motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the plaintiff's objections to the jury charge were not preserved and the verdict was supported by credible evidence, particularly concerning the plaintiff's implied agreement to guarantee the defendant's payroll.

Breach of ContractArtisan's LienReplevin ActionDamagesJury VerdictAppellate ProcedureWaiver of ObjectionSufficiency of EvidencePayroll GuaranteeClothing Manufacturing
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCloud v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.

Plaintiff Wilbur McCloud suffered a head injury when a metal cap from a utility pole dislodged and struck him during removal, after the pole had been prepared by the defendant's crew at a significant height. The Supreme Court erred by denying the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation and dismissing the claim. The appellate court ruled that a utility pole is a "structure" under the statute, imposing a nondelegable duty on the pole owner (defendant) to provide safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related risks, including falling objects. The court found that the plaintiff's injuries resulted from an object falling from an elevated worksite, thus entitling the plaintiff to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The order was modified and, as modified, affirmed, with two judges dissenting.

Utility Pole InjuryElevation Differential RiskFalling Object InjuryNondelegable DutySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' SafetyConstruction Site SafetyPersonal InjurySafety Devices
References
9
Case No. Index No. 29782/17 | Appeal No. 5660 | Case No. 2024-07007
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2026

Elmaz v. CNY Constr. LLC

Plaintiff Ismail Elmaz, a helper for nonparty Team Electric, was injured when a coworker's electric drill fell from an A-frame ladder, striking his wrist and causing him to fall. He sought summary judgment on liability for claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 200, 241(6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied aspects of his motion and dismissed certain claims. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting plaintiff summary judgment on liability for the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, finding that defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices to protect against falling objects. The court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding the law's applicability, sole proximate cause, and prematurity, rendering other claims academic.

Workplace InjuryConstruction Site AccidentFalling ObjectsLabor Law ComplianceSummary Judgment LiabilityAppellate DecisionSafety Device FailureComparative Fault DefenseProximate CausationA-frame Ladder Accident
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baytsayeva v. Shapiro

A plaintiff, a former medical assistant, sued defendants alleging severe physical and emotional injuries after being struck by their car in January 2008. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff had not sustained a 'serious injury' as defined by New York Insurance Law § 5102(d). The court reviewed extensive medical evidence, including reports from treating physicians (Drs. Miller, Neystat, and Kuhn) and defendants' experts (Drs. Fisher and Block), detailing diagnoses such as post-concussion syndrome, depression, PTSD, cervical and lumbar disc issues, and significant limitations in range of motion. Finding that the plaintiff had presented sufficient prima facie objective and subjective evidence to establish serious injury under permanent loss, significant limitation, and 90/180-day claims, and that causation was adequately demonstrated, the court DENIED the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Summary Judgment DeniedSerious InjuryNew York Insurance LawAutomobile AccidentPersonal InjuryTraumatic Brain InjuryPost-Concussion SyndromeDepressionChronic PainRange of Motion Limitation
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelleher v. New York State Trooper Fearon

Plaintiff Eugene Kelleher brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Denzil Fearon, a New York State Trooper, for damages resulting from an unlawful strip search. A jury found Fearon liable and awarded Kelleher $125,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress. Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively, a new trial or remittitur. The court denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law, upholding the jury's finding that Fearon was not entitled to qualified immunity, as there was sufficient evidence to infer he lacked objective reasonable suspicion for the strip search. However, the court granted the motion for remittitur, reducing the jury's award to $25,000, citing a lack of corroborating medical evidence for Kelleher's emotional distress.

Strip SearchQualified ImmunityExcessive ForceEmotional Distress DamagesRemittiturJury AwardCivil RightsAutomobile PresumptionProbable CauseFalse Arrest
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 16,303 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