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. ADJ10884813
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

ALICIA RODRIGUEZ vs. DYNAMIC EDGE CONSULTING, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

Alicia Rodriguez, applicant, suffered a brain injury during employment with Dynamic Edge Consulting, insured by Travelers Property Casualty Company of America. The initial WCJ decision found the defendant liable for 24-hour home health care due to a failure in timely utilization review of Dr. Roger Bertoldi's prescription, which incorporated Sue Coleman's evaluation. Defendant petitioned for reconsideration, arguing the prescription was non-compliant and their duty was investigative, not to submit to UR. The Appeals Board granted the petition, deferring a final decision for further review and encouraging mediation.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardDynamic Edge ConsultingTravelers Property Casualty Company of AmericaPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAOE/COEBrain Injury24-Hour Home Health CareUtilization ReviewDr. Roger Bertoldi
References
27
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02243 [204 AD3d 428]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2022

Rooney v. D.P. Consulting Corp.

Plaintiff, Patrick Rooney, was injured after tripping on a wooden ramp while performing work on a freight elevator during a renovation project. The Supreme Court initially dismissed his Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims, categorizing his work as routine maintenance. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this decision, reinstating the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and portions of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The Appellate Division determined that plaintiff's actions to secure the elevator in preparation for renovation constituted 'altering the premises,' thus falling under the protection of Labor Law. Additionally, the court found issues of fact regarding Edge General Contracting, Inc.'s liability as a statutory agent and affirmed the denial of Edge's motion to dismiss common-law negligence, indemnification, and contribution claims.

Labor Law ClaimsRenovation WorkSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewIndustrial Code ViolationsStatutory Agent LiabilityCommon-Law NegligenceIndemnification ClaimsContribution ClaimsElevator Accident
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bruno v. Dynamic Enterprises, Inc.

This case involves a personal injury action where Dynamic Enterprises, Inc. appealed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Dynamic contended it was engaged in a joint venture with Executive Club International, Inc. (ECI), the plaintiff's employer, arguing for dismissal based on workers' compensation exclusivity. However, the court found no joint venture, noting Dynamic and ECI were separate corporate entities, filed separate tax returns, and did not share income or losses. Consequently, Dynamic's workers' compensation defense was dismissed, and the judgment was unanimously affirmed with costs.

Personal InjuryJoint VentureWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityCorporate LiabilityAffirmation of JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationshipNegligenceBusiness LawLegal Precedent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2004

Ribeiro v. Dynamic Painting Corp.

Raymundo Ribeiro, an employee of Wells Diversified Services, Inc., sustained injuries in October 1998 while sandblasting on the Castleton-on-Hudson Bridge for a joint venture including Dynamic Painting Corporation and Romano Enterprises, Inc. Ribeiro and his spouse initiated legal action against these contractors, asserting a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiffs sought summary judgment, while defendants moved for dismissal, arguing that Ribeiro was a 'special employee' of Dynamic, making the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions applicable. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted the defendants' dismissal request. The Appellate Division affirmed both rulings, confirming the existence of a special employment relationship, thereby upholding the defendants' entitlement to summary judgment.

Special Employee DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentConstruction AccidentScaffold AccidentAppellate ReviewContractor LiabilityJoint VentureSandblasting
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Domino v. Professional Consulting, Inc.

Gregory Domino, a carpenter employed by Carlin Contracting Co., Inc., was injured while working on a Village of Mount Kisco water treatment facility, allegedly due to the installation of floor panels hoisted by a crane owned by Smedley Crane Service, Inc. He and his wife commenced an action for personal injuries against Professional Consulting, Inc. (PCI), the construction manager, and Smedley. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to PCI, finding it was not a "contractor" or "owner" under Labor Law sections 240(1) or 241, nor liable under Labor Law section 200 or common-law negligence due to lack of supervisory authority. The appellate court affirmed this part of the decision, noting PCI's contracts expressly precluded it from supervising the work or safety procedures. However, the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to Smedley, as Smedley failed to establish it lacked authority to control or supervise the crane's rigging activity, thus the appellate court reversed that portion of the decision.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentReargumentConstruction Manager LiabilityCrane OperationWorker SafetyAgency LawStatutory LiabilityPremises Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2004

Claim of Shanbaum v. Alliance Consulting Group

The claimant, a software solution architect for Alliance Consulting Group, sustained an injury on September 11, 2001, while evacuating her apartment located across from her employer's World Trade Center office after the terrorist attacks. Her employer provided and paid for the apartment, which also served as a remote workspace equipped with a company laptop for accessing the main server. On the morning of the incident, the claimant had logged onto her computer, checked work emails, and begun preparing for a meeting. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the apartment functioned as an extension of the employer’s office and that the injury arose within the scope of her employment. This decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentAccidental InjuryTelecommutingHome OfficeWorld Trade Center AttacksSeptember 11Employer LiabilityArising Out Of EmploymentCourse Of Employment
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06389 [210 AD3d 1448]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2022

Smith v. MDA Consulting Engrs., PLLC

Nicholas Smith sued MDA Consulting Engineers, PLLC, for injuries sustained after falling from a foundation wall during construction, alleging Labor Law and common-law negligence violations. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court determined that the defendant was not an owner, contractor, or statutory agent of the Town, and therefore lacked supervisory control over the work or safety measures, absolving them of liability under Labor Law and common-law negligence. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewAgency RelationshipConstruction AccidentFall InjurySupervisory ControlCommon-Law NegligenceStatement of Material FactsStatutory Agent
References
17
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04613
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2015

Kiskiel v. Stone Edge Management, Inc.

The injured plaintiff, Edward Kiskiel, a New York City sanitation worker, allegedly slipped and fell on a puddle of wet paint in a parking lot. The defendant, Stone Edge Management, Inc., managed an adjoining condominium complex that had an easement over the parking lot. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the order, holding that the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence. The court found the condition was transient and not visible prior to the accident, and there was no evidence, only speculation, that the defendant created it. Thus, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Slip and FallPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeHazardous ConditionParking Lot AccidentProperty ManagementAppellate ReviewNegligencePersonal Injury
References
4
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00218 [157 AD3d 1116]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2018

Matter of Joseph v. Atelier Consulting LLC

Claimant Brad Joseph, a construction worker, sought workers' compensation benefits after fracturing his foot while working at a construction site, naming George Villar/Atelier Consulting LLC as his employer. An investigation revealed Atelier was exempt from coverage and lacked workers' compensation insurance at the time of the accident. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined an employer-employee relationship existed between Atelier and Joseph, holding Omega Construction Group, Inc., the general contractor, responsible for awards and imposing a $36,000 penalty on Atelier for failing to secure insurance. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the employer-employee relationship and no error in the Board's refusal to consider an affidavit from Villar.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipConstruction AccidentInsurance CoveragePenalty ImpositionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAffidavit AdmissibilityCross-Examination RightsGeneral Contractor Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Rochester Independent Workers & General Dynamics/Electronics Division

This case involves a motion by the Rochester Independent Workers, Local No. 1 (Union) to compel arbitration against General Dynamics/Electronics Division (Company). The grievance concerned a reduction in force, lay-offs, and the transfer of work out of the bargaining unit. The Union claimed violations of the Recognition and Management Rights articles of their collective bargaining agreement. The Company argued that its right to subcontract and assign work was an exclusive management prerogative explicitly excluded from arbitration by the agreement. The court, referencing Federal precedents, determined that the agreement's language clearly excluded such matters from arbitration and, therefore, denied the Union's motion to compel arbitration.

arbitrationlabor disputecollective bargaining agreementsubcontractingmanagement rightsgrievance procedurelay-offunionfederal court decisionscontract interpretation
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 380 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