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

Davis v. Butler

Plaintiff William A. Davis, a general employee of Livingston Services, Inc., was assigned to work for Andrew 'Andy' Butler, a general contractor. Davis sued Butler, but the Supreme Court erred in denying Butler's motion for summary judgment. The appellate court found that Davis was a special employee of Butler as a matter of law, meaning his action against Butler was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provisions. Despite Livingston paying wages and providing workers' compensation benefits, Butler maintained complete control and supervision over Davis's work. Therefore, the order of the Supreme Court was reversed, Butler's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint against Butler was dismissed.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeGeneral ContractorSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewEmployer ControlLabor LawNew York LawSteuben County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ryan v. New York Telephone Co.

Edward C. Ryan was terminated by New York Telephone Company (Telco) for alleged theft, leading to criminal charges and denial of unemployment benefits. While criminal charges were dropped and the unemployment benefits denial was upheld, Ryan sued Telco for false arrest, malicious prosecution, slander, and wrongful discharge. His wife, Darlene Ryan, also claimed related injuries. Special Term denied Telco's summary judgment motion and struck its res judicata and collateral estoppel defenses. This dissenting opinion argues that the administrative finding of Ryan's misconduct should preclude relitigation under res judicata and collateral estoppel, thus the Special Term's order should be reversed and Telco's cross-motion granted.

Res JudicataCollateral EstoppelUnemployment BenefitsWrongful DischargeFalse ArrestMalicious ProsecutionSlanderAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment
References
8
Case No. 166 AD3d 1449
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2018

Davis v. Eab-Tab Enters.

Plaintiff Kody Davis, a laborer, was injured while working for defendant Thomas Bender in a building owned by EAB-TAB Enterprises. Davis and his spouse filed a complaint alleging negligence and Labor Law violations. The defendants' insurer, Utica First Insurance Company, denied coverage based on an employee exclusion. After plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert only negligence, Utica First moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing no obligation to defend or indemnify. The Supreme Court denied the motion, deeming Davis an independent contractor. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, finding a triable issue of fact as to Davis's employment status, thus precluding summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentEmployee ExclusionIndependent Contractor StatusInsurance Coverage DisputeLabor LawNegligenceThird-Party ActionAppellate DivisionTriable Issue of FactEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
9
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00906
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

Matter of Davis v. Hutchings Children Servs.

Charlene Davis, a licensed practical nurse, sustained work-related injuries in 2010, leading to two established workers' compensation claims and a classification of permanent partial disability. Approaching the exhaustion of her indemnity benefits, Davis filed requests for an extreme hardship redetermination to achieve reclassification to permanent total disability. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially granted these requests, the Workers' Compensation Board modified the decision, concluding that Davis failed to demonstrate extreme financial hardship. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination. The court found the Board's interpretation of "extreme hardship" to be rational and its decision to deny reclassification supported by substantial evidence, based on a comprehensive review of Davis's assets, income, and monthly expenses.

Workers' Compensation LawExtreme Financial HardshipPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityWage-Earning Capacity LossRedetermination RequestStatutory InterpretationAppellate DivisionBoard Decision AffirmationSocial Security Benefits
References
8
Case No. ADJ10256108, ADJ10255968, ADJ10256212, ADJ10256223, ADJ10489875
Regular
Sep 23, 2022

JOSEPH RYAN vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board affirmed the finding of permanent and total disability for the applicant, Joseph Ryan, stemming from industrial injuries sustained while employed as a correctional captain. However, the Board remanded the matter for further proceedings to specifically address apportionment of the permanent disability under Labor Code section 4663, considering the Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinion on pre-existing spinal disease. The Board found that the applicant's specific and cumulative trauma injuries to his spine resulted in intertwined disabilities, justifying a combined award, but that Dr. Hasday's apportionment findings require further development and determination at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoseph RyanCalifornia Department of CorrectionsLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundADJ10256108ADJ10255968ADJ10256212ADJ10256223ADJ10489875
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Hogan

The plaintiff, Davis, was expelled from a union and subsequently discharged by his employer, the defendant corporation. He alleged that his expulsion and discharge were unlawful, violating his rights under various statutes, including the State Labor Relations Act. A prior proceeding before the State Labor Relations Board found the corporation guilty of an unfair labor practice by discharging Davis but refused his reinstatement due to his own misconduct. On appeal, the court ruled that the plaintiff's claim falls under the Labor Relations Act, which provides a specific legal remedy through judicial review of the Board's decision. Since the plaintiff failed to pursue this appellate remedy, he cannot maintain a separate action in the Supreme Court. Consequently, the complaint against the defendant corporation was dismissed.

Labor DisputeUnfair Labor PracticeUnion ExpulsionWrongful DischargeCollective Bargaining AgreementState Labor Relations ActJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionDue Process ClaimsAppellate Procedure
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 1991

Davis v. Pizzagalli Construction Co.

Plaintiff James M. Davis was injured after falling from scaffolding while employed by Arthur Barber, Jr., a subcontractor to Pizzagalli Construction Company, which was hired by Chemung County. Davis and his wife filed damage actions against the defendants, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes absolute liability for failure to provide proper protection for workers at risk due to elevation differentials. The Supreme Court denied the motion, but on appeal, the court found that Davis's uncontradicted testimony established a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) as a scaffold board "kicked up" causing his fall. Defendants' mere speculation and the unwitnessed nature of the fall were deemed insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing, leading to the reversal of the lower court's order.

Scaffolding AccidentAbsolute LiabilityLabor Law § 240(1)Personal InjurySummary JudgmentContractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityWorkplace SafetyFall from HeightProximate Cause
References
13
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 03122 [138 AD3d 615]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

Pareja v. Davis

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which had denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The defendant, Anthony Davis, successfully argued for an exemption under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) as an owner of a one or two-family dwelling who did not direct or control the work. Evidence showed Davis was living in England during renovations, and his agent lacked authority to direct construction methods. The plaintiff, Pablo Pareja, failed to present sufficient evidence to counter the defendant's prima facie entitlement to the homeowner's exemption, offering only unfounded speculation about commercial use of the property. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint dismissed.

Labor Law ExemptionHomeowner's ExemptionSummary JudgmentAgency AuthorityDirection and ControlConstruction AccidentsAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryPrima Facie EvidenceRespondent
References
5
Case No. TI11710087
Regular
Nov 20, 2018

Theodore Davis vs. CITY OF MODESTO, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES, GROUP, INC.

This case involves applicant Theodore Davis's prostate cancer claim against the City of Modesto. The core dispute centers on the admissibility and review of a medical report by Dr. Besses. The Appeals Board initially denied review of Dr. Besses' report but, following a court of appeal remittitur, is now granting removal. The matter is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to re-evaluate the admissibility of Dr. Besses' report under Labor Code section 4605 and related rules, and whether it can be provided to the QME. This decision clarifies that while QME evaluations are required for compensability disputes, privately obtained medical reports may still be admissible.

RemittiturPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 4060Labor Code Section 4605Admissibility of Medical ReportsEx Parte CommunicationCumulative TraumaSpecific Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP

Eunice Martinez sued her former employer, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Martinez claimed she was denied promotions/upgrades, received discriminatory annual raises, and experienced retaliation for filing a charge with the EEOC. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis to her claims. It found Martinez failed to establish a prima facie case for failure to promote/upgrade due to insufficient evidence regarding comparable qualifications and job duties. Her claim of raise discrimination was also denied because her comparators held managerial positions, unlike her. Finally, the retaliation claim was dismissed as adverse job actions predated her protected activity. Consequently, Davis Polk's motion for summary judgment was granted.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISection 1981Summary JudgmentFailure to PromoteUnequal PayEEOC ComplaintMcDonnell Douglas TestEmployment Law
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 1,555 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