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

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

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. 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
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. 2003-43576
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Unitec Elevator Services Co.

In this opinion, relators Unitec Elevator Services Company d/b/a VTM Elevator Company, and related entities, challenged the trial court's orders denying their motions to designate responsible third parties in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. Plaintiffs Mary Theresa Bryant and Anna Menses, along with intervenors David Trujillo and Rawle Frank, alleged injuries from an elevator fall while working for Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. Relators sought to designate Southwestern Bell, unknown vandals, and Centerpoint Energy as responsible third parties. The appellate court denied the petition for writ of mandamus, upholding the trial court's denial for unknown vandals and Centerpoint Energy due to procedural issues. While the trial court erred in denying the designation of Southwestern Bell, the appellate court found the relators had an adequate remedy by appeal, thus making mandamus relief unnecessary. The court ultimately denied the petition in all respects.

MandamusResponsible Third PartyCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTimelinessGood CauseStatutory ConstructionPersonal InjuryElevator Accident
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carroum v. Dover Elevator Co.

This case involves an appeal by Budgetel Inns, the third-party defendant, against a summary judgment granted to Dover Elevator Company, the third-party plaintiff, based on an indemnity clause. The underlying action arose from an injury sustained by Roger Carroum, a Budgetel employee, who sued Dover for negligence in an elevator incident. Dover subsequently sought indemnification from Budgetel, relying on a contractual indemnity clause. Budgetel argued the clause was void under T.C.A. § 62-6-123, which invalidates indemnity agreements related to construction against a promisee's sole negligence. The appellate court found that material facts were disputed regarding whether the Budgetel Inn was still under construction at the time of the injury, making summary judgment improper. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Indemnity ClauseSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationConstruction ContractNegligenceThird-Party ComplaintT.C.A. § 62-6-123Public PolicyVoid ContractBodily Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 1994

Brooks v. City of New York

This case concerns an appeal from an order denying plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on defendant's liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The appellate court modified the lower court's decision, granting defendant summary judgment and dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The court reiterated that Labor Law § 240 (1) provides absolute liability only for elevation-related hazards, not other types of hazards. It was determined that the plaintiff, who was grouting tiles, was not exposed to an elevation-related risk, as the task could be completed without the need for elevation devices, despite initial claims contradicting EBT testimony and photographic evidence.

summary judgmentLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)elevation-related hazardsstatutory interpretationAppellate DivisionCPLR 3212 (b)absolute liabilityproximate causeEBT testimony
References
5
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04415
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2023

Rivas v. Seward Park Hous. Corp.

William Rivas, a laborer, was injured when a trench wall collapsed while he was working at a depth of approximately 12 feet. He sued Seward Park Housing Corporation, Fred Smith Plumbing and Heating Company, and Onsite Construction Enterprises, asserting a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied Rivas's motion for partial summary judgment on this claim and granted the defendants' cross-motion, dismissing the claim, reasoning that a trench cave-in was not an elevation-related hazard. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, finding that the trench cave-in presented an elevation-related hazard within the contemplation of Labor Law § 240 (1), especially in light of the Court of Appeals decisions in Runner and Wilinski. The court concluded that the defendants failed to provide adequate protection against a gravity-related accident and are liable under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240 (1)trench collapseelevation-related hazardsummary judgmentexcavation accidentconstruction safetygravity-related accidentshoringappellate reviewFirst Department
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1997

Masullo v. City of New York

Angelo Masullo, an employee of A.F.C. Enterprises, Inc., was injured after falling into an uncovered manhole at a pumping station owned by the City of New York. Masullo and other plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied their motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and granted the City's cross-motion to dismiss that claim. The Supreme Court ruled that the injury was not due to an elevation-related hazard covered by the Labor Law, but an ordinary construction site peril. The Appellate Court affirmed this decision, concurring that the plaintiff's work was unrelated to an elevation-related hazard, thus properly granting the City's cross-motion for summary judgment.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentElevation HazardManhole FallConstruction AccidentAppellate DecisionPremises LiabilityEmployer LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Covey v. Iroquois Gas Transmission System

Plaintiff was injured during pipeline construction when a handrail on a backhoe detached, causing him to fall approximately 20 feet into an adjacent ditch. He initiated an action against the defendants, owners of the pipeline, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), as well as negligence. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and denied the defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that Labor Law § 240 (1) was applicable because the plaintiff’s maintenance work was an integral part of construction and exposed him to a significant elevation-related hazard. Dissenting opinions argued that the plaintiff's activity constituted routine maintenance not covered by the statute and that the fall did not meet the definition of an elevation-related hazard.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction Site InjuryElevation-Related HazardRoutine MaintenancePipeline ConstructionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBackhoe AccidentFalling WorkerIntegral Part of Construction
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 8,151 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