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

Ames v. Norstar Building Corp.

This dissenting opinion concerns the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim brought by plaintiff Leigh Ames, a construction worker who suffered injuries from a fall at an elevated work site. Justices Gorski and Lawton argue against the majority's decision to grant defendants' motion for summary judgment, asserting that defendants failed to demonstrate a prima facie showing for dismissal. The dissent contends that Ames's accident, involving a fall while attempting to access an elevated work area, falls under the protections of Labor Law § 240 (1), challenging the majority's conclusion that a doorway threshold is not an elevated work site. Citing numerous precedents, the dissenting justices maintain that the lack of appropriate safety devices for elevated access constitutes a violation of the Labor Law. Therefore, they advocate for denying summary judgment to the defendants and modifying the existing order.

Construction accidentElevated work siteSummary judgmentLabor Law violationDissenting opinionLadder safetyAccess to work sitePrima facie caseWorker protectionPersonal injury
References
15
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. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. 342 Property LLC

Defendant Flintlock Construction Services, LLC, a general contractor, hired Site Safety for site safety management. An unnamed plaintiff suffered an accident, leading to claims against Site Safety, including under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, as well as contractual indemnification claims by Flintlock. Site Safety moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked control over the work site. The court found that Site Safety's role was primarily advisory, with limited authority to stop unsafe work, and thus it lacked the necessary control to incur liability under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence. Additionally, the court dismissed Flintlock's contractual indemnification claim, noting the absence of evidence of negligence by Site Safety, which was a prerequisite for indemnification under their contract. The motion court's decision granting summary judgment to Site Safety was affirmed on appeal.

Summary JudgmentSite Safety ManagementGeneral Contractor LiabilityContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnityLabor Law § 200Negligence ClaimsControl of Work SiteAppellate DecisionConstruction Accident
References
10
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
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lehner v. Dormitory Authority

A construction worker (plaintiff) was injured by falling steel beams at a work site. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted the defendants’ cross motion, dismissing causes of action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, ruling that the plaintiff’s injuries did not result from an elevation-related hazard but rather from common work activities at the same level as the work site.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentFalling ObjectsElevation HazardWorkplace InjuryAppellate DecisionNew York LawPremises Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 1998

Bailey v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of the Capital District

Plaintiff Robin Bailey, an electrical supervisor, was struck in the forehead by a falling concrete core while working on a construction site owned by the YMCA. The incident occurred after he had plugged in an extension cord on an elevated running track and returned to the ground floor. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), arguing that the injury was associated with an elevated risk. The Supreme Court granted the motion, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court concluded that plaintiff's work on the ground floor did not involve an elevation-related risk requiring safety devices, and the concrete core did not constitute material being improperly hoisted or secured.

Construction AccidentFalling Object InjuryLabor Law § 240(1) LiabilityElevation RiskSummary Judgment ReversalWorkplace SafetyAppellate DecisionConstruction SitePlaintiff InjuryEmployer Responsibility
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 11,227 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