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

J.E. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiff J.E. filed this action against the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and New York State Education Law. J.E. sought private school tuition reimbursement for her minor daughter, J.G., whom she unilaterally enrolled in the Rebecca School, challenging administrative decisions that denied funding. The court reviewed the case to determine if J.G. was denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE), if the private placement was appropriate, and if equities favored reimbursement. The court found a procedural violation by the DOE, concluding that the IEP was predetermined without meaningful parental input, which constituted a denial of FAPE. Consequently, J.E.'s motion for summary judgment was granted, and the DOE's cross-motion was denied, with an order for tuition reimbursement.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActIDEAFree Appropriate Public EducationFAPEIndividualized Education ProgramIEPTuition ReimbursementSpecial EducationProcedural ViolationPredetermination of IEP
References
44
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05267 [220 AD3d 882]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2023

Omwathath v. Frank E. Basil, Inc.

Lakhram Omwathath filed an action seeking damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering after the death of the decedent, who was injured while working for Frank E. Basil, Inc. The decedent and subsequently the plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the claims were barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court granted the dismissal, which the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed, concluding that the claims against Frank E. Basil, Inc. were barred and no allegations were made against Data Dimensions.

wrongful deathconscious pain and sufferingworkers' compensationmotion to dismissCPLR 3211 (a)documentary evidenceemployer immunityappellate affirmanceprocedural lawstatutory bar
References
4
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06805
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2025

Bordonaro v. E.C. Provini Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Steven Bordonaro, a carpenter for CBI Drywall, was injured unloading a 1000-pound cabinet from a truck with a pallet jack, falling four feet from a liftgate. He filed claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's orders, dismissing Labor Law § 241(6) and common-law negligence claims against most defendants. However, triable issues remained for E.C. Provini Co. under Labor Law § 200 regarding its failure to provide a forklift. Conditional contractual indemnification was granted to non-owner defendants from CBI Drywall, and contractual indemnification claims against CBI were reinstated for certain other defendants. Common-law indemnification and contribution claims against CBI were dismissed due to workers' compensation and absence of grave injury.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkPallet JackFour-foot FallIndustrial Code ViolationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsGrave InjuryThird-Party Claim
References
9
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08300 [177 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2019

Warren v. E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Gary E. Warren et al., commenced a negligence action against E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc., and Verizon New York, Inc., seeking damages for injuries sustained by Gary E. Warren on a sidewalk outside his employer, Verizon. The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted Verizon's motion for summary judgment, concluding that workers' compensation benefits were the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law, and thus the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the summary judgment motion at that stage. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings after a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board.

NegligenceWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureRemittalScope of EmploymentSidewalk AccidentErie CountyFourth Department
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of E.E. Austin & Son, Inc., sustained injuries after slipping and falling on accumulated grain dust and a hose while working on a construction project at a grain silo owned by Nestle Purina Petcare Company. Plaintiff commenced an action against Nestle Purina Petcare Company, alleging Labor Law violations and common-law negligence. Nestle, in turn, filed a third-party action against Austin for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment from both Nestle and Austin, leading to this appeal and cross-appeal. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, granting summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and partially dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (except for the part based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2)). However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 200 claim, common-law negligence, and contractual indemnification, citing triable issues of fact.

Labor LawCommon-law negligenceSummary judgmentContractual indemnificationGrain silo accidentConstruction project injuryTripping hazardPremises liabilitySupervisory controlIndemnity provision
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Engstrum & Nourse-Stolte v. E.C. Ernst, Inc. (In re E.C. Ernst, Inc.)

E.C. Ernst, Inc. (Ernst), a debtor-in-possession in a Chapter XI bankruptcy proceeding, entered into a subcontract with Engstrom & Nourse-Stolte (ENS) for electrical work. After Ernst filed for bankruptcy, a Supplemental Agreement allowed Ernst to continue the project. ENS later filed a Proof of Claim for expenses, which Ernst moved to expunge or allow only as a general unsecured claim. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment regarding the priority of ENS's claim and the interpretation of their agreements. Additionally, Ernst sought to expunge ENS's claim for failure to produce documents. The court denied both motions for summary judgment, citing disputes over the intent behind the Supplemental Agreement and potential breach of contract, and directed ENS to comply with document production.

Bankruptcy ActChapter XI ReorganizationExecutory ContractsSummary JudgmentDebtor-in-PossessionSubcontract AgreementProof of ClaimPriority ClaimContract InterpretationDocument Production
References
13
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04461
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2025

Joya v. E 31 Partners, LLC

Naun Joya, an employee of Blue Stone Concrete Corp., was injured at a Brooklyn worksite when a plywood sheet struck his head while disassembling a fence. He filed suit against E 31 Partners, LLC and Twin Group Associates, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted Joya's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, denying Joya's motion. The appellate court found that Joya failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accident was an elevation-related hazard or gravity-related risk encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1), specifically lacking details on the height of the fall or the necessity of securing devices.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkFalling ObjectPlywoodConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewElevation HazardGravity RiskTriable Issues of Fact
References
16
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02669 [227 AD3d 505]
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2024

Noel v. 336 E 95th Realty LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order dismissing a third-party complaint filed by 336 E 95th Realty LLC (Owner) against Champion Elevator Corp. The Owner sought indemnification or contribution from Champion Elevator Corp. under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The court found that the plaintiff, Keron Noel, did not suffer a "grave injury" as defined by the statute. Furthermore, there was no binding contractual indemnification agreement between the parties. Therefore, the employer, Champion Elevator Corp., was not liable to the third-party plaintiff, and the dismissal of the complaint was proper.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryIndemnificationContributionThird-Party ComplaintDismissalAppellate DivisionEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.

Plaintiff Barbara E. Martin filed an action under the Employees’ Retirement Income and Security Act (ERISA), alleging wrongful denial of total and permanent disability benefits by her former employer, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio, who recommended granting DuPont's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. District Judge Arcara, upon a de novo review, adopted the proposed findings. The court determined that DuPont's denial of benefits was not arbitrary and capricious, as Martin failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to demonstrate a total and permanent disability as defined by the Plan, particularly regarding her condition immediately prior to termination. Consequently, DuPont's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was dismissed.

ERISADisability BenefitsSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardDe Novo ReviewTotal and Permanent DisabilityMedical EvidenceRotator Cuff InjuryImpingement SyndromeChronic Tendinitis
References
17
Case No. ADJ8235335 ADJ10301846
Regular
Dec 23, 2019

JACK KESSLER vs. E&J GALLO WINERY

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by E&J Gallo Winery that was dismissed as untimely. The petition was filed on October 28, 2019, exceeding the 25-day jurisdictional deadline for filing after the WCJ's September 30, 2019 decision. The Appeals Board emphasized that filing proof of mailing within the deadline is insufficient; the petition must be received by the Board. Furthermore, the Board noted that the same issues raised had been previously addressed, warranting potential sanctions for frivolous conduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitMailing vs. FilingWCJ DecisionSanctionsFrivolous ConductReconsideration DenialAdministrative Law Judge
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 10,714 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