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. 2018-07-0436
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2020

Hart, Jeannie v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp.

This appeal concerns the appropriate medical impairment rating for an employee, Jeannie Hart, who sustained a work-related shoulder injury while employed by ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp. The employer challenged a six percent medical impairment rating, arguing a portion was attributable to a non-work-related condition (AC arthrosis). The Appeals Board found that the distal clavicle resection, performed due to the pre-existing AC arthrosis, was not causally linked to the work injury. Consequently, the Board modified the trial court's award, determining that only a three percent medical impairment rating was directly related to the work injury, based on the authorized physician's testimony.

Medical Impairment RatingShoulder InjuryAC ArthrosisDistal Clavicle ResectionLabral TearBiceps TendinitisCausationPre-existing ConditionAMA GuidesPermanent Partial Disability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Port Elevator-Brownsville, L.L.C. v. Casados

This case involves an appeal concerning the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Rafael Casados, a temporary employee leased by Staff Force to Port Elevator-Brownsville, L.L.C., died in a work-related accident. His parents, Rogelio and Rafaela Casados, sued Port Elevator for wrongful death. Port Elevator sought summary judgment, arguing Casados was its employee and covered by its workers' compensation policy, thus barring the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of Port Elevator's summary judgment and the granting of Casados's partial summary judgment. The court found that Port Elevator failed to conclusively prove its policy covered temporary employees like Casados, thus rendering the exclusive remedy defense inapplicable.

Exclusive Remedy ProvisionTemporary EmployeeBorrowed ServantSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageEmployer LiabilityTexas Workers' Compensation ActStaff Leasing Services ActPolicy InterpretationWrongful Death
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 1998

D'Egidio v. Frontier Insurance

Plaintiff Dominick D'Egidio was injured when he stepped into a hole in a raised floor while working at a construction site for defendant Woolard Construction Company, a general contractor for defendant Frontier Insurance Company. He and his wife filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims were properly dismissed because the plaintiff was aware of the hazard and the opening was not a "hazardous opening" under the relevant regulation. Furthermore, the court determined that the accident was not an elevation-related hazard contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (1), as the work site was the permanent floor and not an elevated surface requiring protective devices.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyElevation-Related HazardStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityFall Protection
References
24
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03901 [161 AD3d 695]
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2018

Giancola v. Yale Club of N.Y. City

Plaintiff Christopher Giancola, an elevator mechanic, sustained injuries when a particle board covering an high-elevation escape hatch on an elevator car, where he was working, collapsed. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified an order from the Supreme Court, New York County. The Appellate Division granted Giancola's cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), determining that it was foreseeable the particle board would collapse and that adequate safety devices should have been provided. However, the court affirmed the denial of Giancola's cross motion for common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, citing triable issues regarding whether the defendant had notice of the hazardous condition.

Elevator AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentForeseeabilitySafety DevicesElevation-Related RisksBuilding MaintenanceWorkplace SafetyNegligenceThird-Party Liability
References
5
Case No. 05-01158
Regular Panel Decision

In Re ACE Elevator Co., Inc.

The Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Benefit Plans sought administrative priority for delinquent contributions from A.C.E. Elevator Co., Inc. (ACE), based on various sections of the Bankruptcy Code. The court denied administrative priority for most claims, including those under 11 U.S.C. §§ 503(b)(1)(A), 507(a)(1), and 1113(f), reasoning that the contributions were for prepetition work and that section 1113(f) does not create super-priority. However, the motion was partially granted under 11 U.S.C. § 1114(e) for Welfare Plan contributions, recognizing them as retiree benefits despite their prepetition nature, but requiring further information on the exact allocation to retirees. Claims for interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees were denied priority, as was ACE's request for costs. This decision underscores the careful interpretation of priority schemes within bankruptcy law.

Bankruptcy LawAdministrative PriorityEmployee BenefitsPension PlansWelfare PlansCollective Bargaining AgreementsDebtor-in-PossessionRetiree Benefits Bankruptcy Protection ActPrepetition ClaimsPostpetition Claims
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Timmons v. Lynx Contracting Corp.

James Timmons, an insulation worker, fell approximately 12 feet through an unprotected skylight in an attic while performing air conditioning work at the College of Mount Saint Vincent, owned by the Sisters of Charity of Saint Vincent DePaul of New York. He sustained injuries, leading him to sue under Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging a lack of safety devices for an elevation hazard. The defendants, including the College and HMS Mechanical Systems, Inc., opposed, arguing the fall was not from an elevated work site and questioning the need for additional safety devices or citing plaintiff's conduct as the sole proximate cause. The court denied the defendant Sisters' motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiff was working at an elevated height and that contributory negligence is not a defense under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240Construction SafetyFall AccidentSummary Judgment MotionElevation HazardSkylight FallOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityStrict LiabilityContributory Negligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. 44th Street Development, LLC

Plaintiff Donald Brown, a carpenter, sustained injuries after falling through rebar while working on a construction site in Manhattan. He was carrying lumber and walking on elevated rebar when his feet slipped into an opening. Plaintiff sought summary judgment under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), while defendants moved to dismiss claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The court granted plaintiff summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, finding the defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices for an elevation-related hazard. However, claims under Labor Law §§ 241 (6) and 200 were dismissed, as the rebar was integral to the ongoing work and the hazard was deemed open and obvious, respectively.

construction accidentworker injuryLabor Lawscaffold lawsummary judgmentliabilityelevation hazardrebar fallNew York Labor Lawworksite safety
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Triola v. City of New York

Plaintiff James Trióla, employed as a laborer at a construction site, sustained injuries while cleaning sand inside steel tube pilings. He alleged that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to provide adequate safety devices while he traversed elevated concrete beams, leading to a fall. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on liability, asserting the hazard was elevation-related and that the defendants' failure to provide safety equipment was the proximate cause of injuries. The defendants contended the hazard was not elevation-related and that the plaintiff caused his own injuries. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motion, and the appellate court affirmed, concluding that the work involved an elevation-related risk and that the lack of safety devices was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentLiabilityElevation-Related RiskSafety DevicesProximate CauseAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryStaten Island
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 1997

Melo v. Consolidated Edison Co.

This case concerns an appeal regarding the application of Labor Law § 240 (1) to a construction accident. The plaintiff was injured when a steel plate, attached to a backhoe and being hoisted, became disengaged and fell, striking the plaintiff who was at ground level. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, a decision which was subsequently affirmed by the appellate court. The majority affirmed on the grounds that Labor Law § 240 (1) applies only to elevation-related hazards where the object falls from a significantly higher elevation than the work site, not merely due to gravity at ground level. The dissenting opinion argued that the use of an improvised hoist (backhoe and chain) and the elevation of even one end of the plate above the plaintiff's foot constituted an elevation-related hazard intended to be covered by the statute.

Labor Lawelevation differentialconstruction accidentfalling objectbackhoehoistslingstrict liabilitysummary judgmentappellate review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bennion v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

The dissenting judges, Doerr and Boehm, concur with the majority's decision to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. However, they respectfully dissent from the majority's determination that the plaintiff is entitled to recover under Labor Law § 240 (1). The dissent argues that the plaintiff's injury, which occurred when he fell on an elevated work surface while installing a collar on flexible duct work, does not fall within the "special hazards" contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (1). They assert that these hazards are limited to specific gravity-related accidents like falling from a height or being struck by improperly secured objects, not merely any peril tangentially connected to gravity. Citing various precedents, the dissenting judges contend that the plaintiff's injury, a fall from a standing to a sitting position on the same work surface, does not meet the statutory criteria. Therefore, they would modify the order by denying the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action.

Labour LawConstruction SafetyGravity-Related AccidentsElevated Work SurfaceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorkers' RightsStatutory InterpretationWorkplace Safety
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 10,882 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