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. MDL No. 1038
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2002

In Re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation

This multidistrict products liability action involved thousands of plaintiffs alleging injuries from the Norplant contraceptive device against American Home Products Corporation and its subsidiaries. The court considered two motions for partial summary judgment. The first, concerning the 'learned intermediary doctrine' and 26 primary side effects, was granted in part and denied for 10 plaintiffs whose cases were governed by New Jersey law due to an advertising exception. The second motion, addressing over 950 'exotic conditions' for which no causation evidence was presented, was granted against all plaintiffs. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment against 2,960 plaintiffs, effectively concluding the MDL proceedings for the majority of the non-settling cases.

Products LiabilityNorplantContraceptive DeviceLearned Intermediary DoctrineCausationSummary JudgmentMultidistrict LitigationFailure to WarnPharmaceuticalsTexas Law
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haystrand v. County of Ontario

The plaintiff was injured after falling from a scaffold while painting a building owned by the defendant. The plaintiff commenced an action alleging violations of the Labor Law, specifically Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on this claim. On appeal, the defendant contended that the court erred, arguing that the plaintiff's failure to use the scaffold's locking mechanism was dispositive. The appellate court rejected this argument, stating that an owner's statutory duty under Labor Law § 240 (1) requires furnishing, placing, and operating safety devices to give proper protection, and is not met merely by making devices available. The court also determined that the 'recalcitrant worker' doctrine did not apply because the defendant did not provide the safety devices. The plaintiff's own negligence was deemed irrelevant to a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The order was unanimously affirmed with costs.

Labor Law § 240 (1)scaffold accidentfall from heightowner liabilitystatutory dutysummary judgmentrecalcitrant worker doctrinecontributory negligenceappellate reviewconstruction accident
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 1992

Singh v. Barrett

Plaintiff, an employee of Jimco Restoration Corporation, was injured on August 8, 1990, while performing restoration work that involved removing a second floor at 102 Charles Street in Manhattan. He fell to the floor below when a supporting joist gave way. The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing absolute liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide proper safety devices. The defendant owner opposed, claiming the plaintiff refused to use available safety equipment, citing an unsworn accident report. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion, finding an issue of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability. The appellate court ruled that the doctrine of refusal to use safety devices was inapplicable as there was no proof that properly constructed, placed, and operated safety devices were provided. The court also affirmed that Labor Law § 240 (1) applied to the work due to the elevation-related hazards created by floor removal.

Labor Law Section 240 (1)Absolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentSafety DevicesConstruction AccidentFall from HeightWorker InjuryAppellate ReviewDuty to Provide Safety EquipmentRefusal to Use Safety Devices
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paisley v. Coin Device Corp.

Plaintiffs Dougal Paisley and Rohan Christie, employees of Coin Device Corporation, were terminated after being arrested for missing money, despite charges being dismissed. They subsequently filed an action against Coin Device Corporation, Biju Thomas, and Brian Gibbons, alleging malicious prosecution, wrongful termination, negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss these claims. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, ruling that the defendants were not liable for malicious prosecution as they merely provided information to the police, who made the arrest decision. Furthermore, the court found the wrongful termination claims invalid due to the plaintiffs' at-will employment status, and the negligence claims barred by Workers' Compensation Law, leading to the dismissal of all specified claims against the appellants.

malicious prosecutionwrongful terminationnegligenceloss of consortiumpunitive damagesat-will employmentWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211appealemployer liability
References
7
Case No. B371-2013, B372-2013
Regular Panel Decision

People v. English

The defendant was arrested for attempted kidnapping and compelling a 14-year-old to engage in prostitution. Incident to the arrest, an iPhone was seized and searched under warrant B371-2013, and an apartment was searched under warrant B372-2013. The defendant moved to controvert both search warrants. The court denied the motion regarding B371-2013, finding the search of the cell phone's contents did not exceed the warrant's scope given the flexibility afforded in digital searches and the plain view doctrine for other incriminating evidence. However, the court granted in part the motion regarding B372-2013, ruling that the warrant for the apartment's electronic devices lacked the necessary specificity under the Fourth Amendment, leading to the suppression of evidence seized from those devices. Evidence seized under the valid portions of B372-2013 (non-electronic items like a holster and ammunition) was deemed admissible.

Search warrantFourth AmendmentCell phone searchElectronic device searchParticularity requirementProbable causeSuppression of evidencePlain view doctrineDigital forensicsAttempted kidnapping
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kothmann Enterprises, Inc. v. Trinity Industries, Inc.

This is a patent infringement suit where Kothmann Enterprises, Inc. (KEI) alleged that Trinity Industries, Inc. (Trinity) infringed two of its patents, U.S. Patent No. 6,022,003 (the ’003 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,505,820 (the ’820 Patent), with its roadside safety devices, the MPS-350 and TRACC. Trinity denied infringement and asserted the patents were invalid. The court granted KEI's motion for summary judgment regarding ownership of the patents. However, the court found that Trinity's MPS-350 and TRACC devices did not infringe the asserted claims of either the ’003 or the ’820 Patent, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, thus granting Trinity's motions for non-infringement. Furthermore, the court denied Trinity's motions for summary judgment regarding the invalidity of the ’003 and ’820 Patents, concluding that they were not invalid for lack of a written description or anticipation by prior art. The case was bifurcated, with equitable defenses to be addressed in a separate order.

Patent InfringementRoadside Safety DevicesCrash CushionsTruck-Mounted AttenuatorsSummary JudgmentClaim ConstructionWritten Description RequirementAnticipationProsecution History EstoppelDoctrine of Equivalents
References
121
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

Brinson v. Kulback's & Assoc., Inc.

Clifton J. Brinson, a foreman for Mandón Building Systems, Inc., sustained injuries when a 50-pound plank struck him while dismantling scaffolding at a Walgreen’s construction site. He alleged that the absence of required safety devices, as mandated by Labor Law § 240 (1), caused the accident, compounded by a distraction from heavy equipment operated by Kulback’s & Assoc., Inc. and Kulback’s Construction, Inc. The Supreme Court initially dismissed Brinson's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Kulback's. On appeal, the higher court modified the order, reinstating the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Kulback’s & Assoc., Inc. and Kulback’s Construction, Inc., finding a triable issue of fact regarding the causal link between the lack of safety devices and Brinson's injury. Furthermore, the court granted summary judgment to Mandón Building Systems, Inc. on the common-law indemnification claim, concluding that Brinson did not suffer a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Other claims regarding Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence (rescue doctrine), and contractual indemnification were properly left for trial due to triable issues of fact or contractual ambiguity.

Scaffolding AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryElevated Work SiteTriable Issue of Fact
References
9
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00908 [213 AD3d 1117]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

Matter of Petre v. Allied Devices Corp.

Claimant Gheorghe Petre appealed a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board that denied his application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The underlying Board decision had affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling, which amended the claimant's work-related injury claim and directed his doctor to seek prior authorization for Gabapentin. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed the Board's denial, limiting its scope to whether the Board had abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily. Finding no new evidence, material change in condition, or improper consideration of issues by the Board, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision. Thus, the claimant's appeal for reconsideration and/or full Board review was ultimately denied.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionReconsiderationInjury ClaimMedical ExpensesDrug FormularyGabapentinProcedural Due ProcessAdministrative Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Star Reinsurance Corp. v. Continental Insurance

The court addresses the novel legal issue of "preindemnification" and the application of the "antisubrogation rule" in cases involving disputes among insurance carriers over work site injuries. It rejects the "preindemnification" doctrine, which contractors asserted would prioritize owners' insurance coverage over their own, citing lack of support from contractual language, premium disparities, or common-law indemnification principles. However, the court affirms and extends the narrower antisubrogation rule, preventing an insurer from seeking recovery from its own insured for the same risk, even when multiple policies are involved. This rule is applied to bar subrogation claims in the cases of Prince and Valentin, but not in North Star due to specific policy exclusions.

Insurance LawIndemnificationSubrogationPreindemnification DoctrineAntisubrogation RuleWorkers' CompensationGeneral Contractors' Liability (GCL) InsuranceOwners' Contractors' Protective (OCP) InsuranceVicarious LiabilityContractual Obligation
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 1,594 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