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

Rogers v. Westfalia Associated Technologies, Inc.

Ronald Rogers, while performing maintenance, fell nine feet from a stationary conveyor system at Agway Feed Mill. He and his wife, Lisa Rogers, sued Westfalia Associated Technologies, Inc. and Portee, Inc., alleging negligent design and manufacturing, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and strict products liability. Westfalia, Portee, Probec, Inc., and Mill Technology, Inc. filed motions for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty to Rogers and their products were not defective. The court found that Agway, the employer and purchaser, was in the best position to assess risks and declined optional safety equipment. Furthermore, Rogers was aware of the dangers, and warnings were posted. Consequently, the court granted all motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, counterclaims, and cross-claims.

Product LiabilityNegligenceStrict LiabilityDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentConveyor SystemIndustrial AccidentAssumption of RiskOpen and Obvious Danger
References
17
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02654
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2016

Matter of Dayannie I. M. (Roger I. M.)

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Family Court order which found Roger I.M. abused and neglected his daughter, Eyllen I.M., and derivatively abused his other children: Dayannie I.M., Hillary I.M., Keyri I.M., and Jackzenny I.M. The court found that the Suffolk County Department of Social Services presented sufficient evidence, including Eyllen's consistent out-of-court statements, expert testimony, and Roger I.M.'s written confession of sexual abuse. The Appellate Division upheld the Family Court's credibility assessment, rejecting the appellant's and the children's mother's disputes. The court also affirmed the derivative abuse findings for the other children, noting that a child's recantation does not necessarily invalidate prior abuse allegations, especially when pressured or if there is expert testimony indicating a false recantation.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewSexual AbuseCredibilityRecantationExpert TestimonyParental RightsSuffolk County Family Court
References
26
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05361
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2024

Rogers v. Peter Scalamandre & Sons, Inc.

The plaintiff, Michael Rogers, an employee of Certified Interiors, Inc., sustained personal injuries at a construction site when a boom lift he was operating suddenly malfunctioned. Rogers initiated an action against Peter Scalamandre & Sons, Inc., the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Scalamandre subsequently filed a third-party action against Certified for contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. The Supreme Court granted Rogers' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) and largely denied other motions. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by granting Certified's motion to dismiss the contractual indemnification claim, deeming it void under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 due to Scalamandre's negligence, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's rulings.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentBoom Lift MalfunctionLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)General Obligations Law § 5-322.1Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird-Party Action
References
32
Case No. ADJ4416816 (AHM 0140718); ADJ3554653 (AHM 014719)
Regular
Sep 22, 2010

MARK ROGERS vs. ALL ABOUT FLOORS, INC., PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND; BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES A.K.A WESTERN FLOORING INSTALLATIONS, PSI

This case involves Mark Rogers' claim for workers' compensation benefits for back injuries sustained while employed by All About Floors, Inc. and Barrett Business Services. The applicant alleged cumulative trauma injury, but medical evidence from Dr. Einbund was inconsistent. Despite Dr. Einbund's initial uncertainty and later inability to state with reasonable medical certainty that a cumulative trauma injury occurred, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, which found the applicant's testimony credible and supported by medical reports, thus deeming the medical opinion substantial evidence to uphold the findings of fact.

WCABReconsideration DeniedPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative Trauma InjuryMedical EvidenceCausation of InjuryDeposition TestimonyApplicant TestimonyJob DutiesSubstantial Medical Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1999

Faele v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Rosemary Faele, a nurse at Coney Island Hospital, sustained an eye irritation and received brief examinations from defendants Dr. Barry Eppinger and Dr. An-nan Das in the hospital's emergency room. Her condition worsened, and she was later diagnosed with a severe eye infection by a private ophthalmologist. Though compensated via Workers' Compensation, Faele and her husband initiated a medical malpractice action against the doctors and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint by granting summary judgment to the defendants. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that a sufficient nexus existed between Faele's employment and the alleged malpractice, thereby precluding a common-law malpractice claim and limiting her recourse to Workers' Compensation.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' Compensation PreclusionSummary Judgment AffirmationEmployment-Related InjuryHospital LiabilityEmergency Medical TreatmentAppellate Division DecisionPersonal InjuryDoctor-Patient NexusConey Island Hospital
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

EEOC v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

This opinion and order addresses motions to exclude expert testimony in a class action sex discrimination lawsuit. The court reviewed challenges to various experts, including those in statistics, sociology, and damages, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert standards. While motions to exclude statistical experts Dr. Farrell Bloch, Dr. William Wecker, Dr. Louis L. Wilde, and Sheldon Wishnick, and social science expert Dr. Barbara Gutek were largely denied, the court granted motions to exclude Roger Blanc (securities expert) and Dr. Ira T. Kay (compensation expert). Additionally, the court partially granted and denied motions for social science experts Dr. William Bielby, Dr. June O’Neill, and Dr. Christopher Winship, limiting specific aspects of their testimony. The court emphasized that many disputes regarding expert methodologies and opinions should be left for the jury to weigh during trial.

Expert TestimonyDaubert StandardFederal Rule of Evidence 702Sex DiscriminationClass Action LawsuitEmployment LawStatistical AnalysisSocial Science ResearchWorkplace BiasAdmissibility of Evidence
References
17
Case No. ADJ691085 (VNO 0490826) ADJ1638152 (VNO 0490827)
Regular
Sep 28, 2009

CEZAR MORALES vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured, INTERCARE INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant sought reconsideration and removal of the WCJ's order deferring their petition to disqualify the IME, Dr. Rogers. The Board dismissed the reconsideration petition as interlocutory orders are not subject to review. Removal was denied as defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice or irreparable harm, having waived objections to Dr. Rogers' appointment and not proving bias in his reports. Therefore, the WCAB dismissed the petition for reconsideration and denied removal.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalIndependent Medical Evaluator (IME)DisqualificationPecuniary InterestInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmWaiver
References
7
Case No. ADJ1224504 (MON 0254221)
Regular
Jun 30, 2010

ALEX JOHNSON vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to review the trial judge's finding of no apportionment for the applicant's knee disability. The WCAB rescinded the prior decision and returned the case for further proceedings and a new decision. This was based on the deposition testimony of the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), Dr. Sohn, which provided substantial medical evidence for apportionment. Dr. Sohn's opinion addressed the increase in disability due to industrial factors versus non-industrial factors such as weight and the natural progression of arthritis, consistent with apportionment statutes.

ApportionmentAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Permanent DisabilityReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJSubstantial Medical EvidenceContinuous TraumaReopenCourt of Appeal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. New York Hospital

Plaintiff, a registered nurse, filed an action under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against The New York Hospital, its President Dr. David Skinner, and Assistant Director of Nursing Mr. Jody Sklar, alleging unlawful employment termination due to an alcoholism relapse. The plaintiff objected to a protective order preventing Dr. Skinner's deposition, while defendants sought to dismiss claims against individual defendants. The court granted dismissal against Mr. Sklar but denied it for Dr. Skinner, finding that individuals responsible for discriminatory decisions can be liable under the Act, especially those in positions to accept federal funds. Consequently, the protective order against deposing Dr. Skinner was set aside.

Rehabilitation Actemployment discriminationdisability rightsalcoholismindividual liabilitycorporate responsibilityprotective orderdiscoverymotion to dismiss
References
9
Case No. ADJ9466180
Regular
Sep 28, 2017

Erin Inman vs. VENTURA REGIONAL SANITATION DISTRICT

The applicant, Erin Inman, seeks reconsideration of a prior award finding 73% permanent disability due to a cumulative trauma injury to her left wrist resulting in reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD). She contends she is totally disabled, citing the Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) Dr. Sohn's opinion that she cannot use either hand and is therefore conclusively presumed totally disabled under Labor Code section 4662(a). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the medical record. The Board found Dr. Sohn's opinion on total disability was not yet definitive as he repeatedly recommended a pain management evaluation and reserved judgment pending its outcome. Therefore, the determination of permanent disability and attorney fees is deferred pending a pain management evaluation and subsequent opinion from the AME.

Reflex Sympathetic DystrophyCumulative TraumaPermanent Total DisabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerPain Management PhysicianBody Parts AffectedLabor Code Section 4662Permanent Disability RatingMedical Record DevelopmentPetition for Reconsideration
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,402 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