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. 2021 NY Slip Op 06030 [199 AD3d 403]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2021

Balcazar v. Commet 380, Inc.

Plaintiff Carlos Balcazar initiated a lawsuit after falling from a ladder while performing electrical work, alleging negligence related to a removed floor tile at a property owned by Commet 380, Inc., Solow Management Corp., and Tag 380 LLC (Owner Defendants). The project involved multiple contractors and subcontractors: The Ergonomic Group (Ergonomic) was hired by the tenant, subcontracting Quick International Courier (Quick), which in turn subcontracted plaintiff's employer. Owner Defendants filed third-party claims for indemnification and contribution against Ergonomic and Quick. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment motions by Quick and Ergonomic. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order by granting Ergonomic's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing all claims against it, and consequently rendering Ergonomic's cross-claim against Quick academic. However, Quick's motion for summary judgment was denied, as triable issues of fact existed concerning its negligence and actual supervision over the injury-producing work.

Summary JudgmentIndemnificationContributionCommon-law NegligenceAppellate ReviewThird-Party ClaimsWorkplace AccidentLadder FallSubcontractor LiabilitySupervision and Control
References
3
Case No. ADJ2553155 (BAK 0151169)
Regular
Oct 17, 2008

KIMBERLY COSTA vs. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award ordering the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) to provide an ergonomic workstation for a claimant. SCIF contends that an employer's current duty to accommodate disabilities under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, not SCIF's workers' compensation obligations under Labor Code section 4600, dictates responsibility for workstation modifications. The Board granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues involved.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardState Compensation Insurance FundReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardErgonomic workstationMedical treatmentCumulative trauma injuryPermanent disabilityApportionmentFair Employment and Housing Act
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03584 [150 AD3d 1360]
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2017

Matter of Xie v. JP Morgan Chase

The claimant, Agnes Xie, appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied her claim for workers' compensation benefits. Xie, a bank executive for JP Morgan Chase, alleged she sustained neck, back, and shoulder injuries in November 2013 due to an ergonomically incorrect workstation. After her employment was terminated, she filed a claim, which was initially proposed for establishment for a back injury by the Board but later rescinded. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim, citing lack of notice and insufficient evidence linking the injuries to employment, a decision upheld by the Board. On appeal, Xie argued employer preclusion and the Board's erroneous failure to establish her claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found these arguments unpreserved for review. The court also noted that while email records regarding workstation issues were before the Board, they did not alter the outcome, as the Board's decision rested on its assessment of witness credibility. Consequently, the Board's decision denying benefits was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation ClaimWorkstation InjuryErgonomic IssuesNeck, Back, Shoulder PainNotice RequirementPreservation of IssuesAppellate ReviewBoard Continuing JurisdictionCredibility of TestimonyClaim Denial
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Farcasin v. PDG, Inc.

Claimant, a director of research and publications, developed neck and shoulder pain radiating to his arms and hands after working for the employer for a month, attributing it to a lack of an ergonomically designed workstation and an outdated computer. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found he suffered an occupational disease. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, but later amended it, ruling that claimant suffered an accidental injury. The employer appealed both decisions. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in amending the prior decision and that substantial evidence supported the finding of an employment-related accidental injury, which can be established by medical evidence of repetitive acts causing debilitating injury, even if symptoms accrued gradually.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Strain InjuryErgonomicsAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionJurisdictionMedical EvidenceGradual Injury
References
7
Case No. 69
Regular Panel Decision

Hewitt v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff Donovan Hewitt sued Metro-North Commuter Railroad under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) for shoulder and arm injuries attributed to unsafe work conditions as a coach cleaner. Metro-North responded with a Daubert motion to exclude Hewitt's ergonomics expert, Dr. Andres, alleging unreliability, and a motion for partial summary judgment, claiming Dr. Sasson's (treating orthopedic surgeon) testimony was dependent on Dr. Andres's. The Court, referencing varying precedents on ergonomics expert testimony, deemed Dr. Andres qualified and his opinions, based on sufficient facts and accepted methodologies, largely admissible. Consequently, Metro-North's motions to exclude expert testimonies and for partial summary judgment were denied, though Dr. Andres was prohibited from stating legal conclusions on causation or negligence.

FELAErgonomicsExpert TestimonyDaubert MotionSummary JudgmentWorkplace InjuryRailroad SafetyMedical CausationBioengineeringOrthopedic Surgery
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Booker v. Intermagnetics General Corp.

Claimant fainted at her workstation, suffering a traumatic head injury. She filed for workers' compensation, which the employer and carrier controverted. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, applying the Workers' Compensation Law § 21 (1) presumption, and found the carrier's rebuttal evidence speculative. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the carrier's medical expert's opinion, attributing the collapse to metabolic acidosis from prior alcohol/substance abuse, was insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption, especially given evidence of 18 months of sobriety.

Workers' Compensation LawStatutory PresumptionAccidental InjuryArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentUnwitnessed AccidentEmployer LiabilityCarrier RebuttalMedical Expert TestimonyMetabolic Acidosis
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Steinhauser v. Ontario County

A motor vehicle representative experienced pain in her right elbow and hand after being required to work in an abnormal position at a new work station. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge classified her condition as an occupational disease. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reclassified it as an accidental injury, citing September 28, 2000, as the accident date. The employer appealed, contesting the change in theory and denying an accident occurred. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, drawing parallels to a previous case, Matter of Farcasin v PDG, Inc., involving similar circumstances of injuries from an ergonomically incorrect work station.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryOccupational DiseaseErgonomicsWork Station InjuryElbow InjuryHand InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionCausation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Durant v. A.C.S. State & Local Solutions Inc.

Plaintiff Sharon Durant filed a lawsuit against A.C.S. State and Local Solutions, Inc. (ACS) alleging sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. Durant, a customer service representative, claimed she received two sexually explicit notes from a co-worker, Terri Simeon. Upon reporting the second note, ACS swiftly responded by moving Durant's workstation and disciplining Simeon, which ended the direct harassment. Despite these actions, Durant resigned, asserting constructive discharge because Simeon was not fired. The court granted summary judgment in favor of ACS, ruling that there was no quid pro quo harassment, the environment was not sufficiently hostile, no constructive discharge occurred, and her state law claims and intentional infliction of emotional distress claim also failed or were time-barred.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentQuid Pro QuoConstructive DischargeEmployer LiabilityCorrective ActionCo-worker MisconductEmployment DiscriminationTitle VII
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ILC Data Device Corp. v. County of Suffolk

Plaintiffs, a group of corporations defined as employers in Suffolk County, initiated an action to invalidate Local Law No. 21, which aimed to protect employees using video display terminals (VDTs) by mandating vision examinations, workstation standards, and work breaks. The County of Suffolk defended the local law. The court, presided over by John Copertino, J., determined that the Suffolk County Legislature overstepped its authority in enacting Local Law No. 21. The ruling cited Municipal Home Rule Law § 11 (1) (f), which prohibits local laws that 'apply to or affect' the Labor Law or Workers’ Compensation Law. The court concluded that the VDT law's comprehensive approach to workplace conditions fell squarely within the purview of state labor laws, thus rendering the local enactment unauthorized and invalid.

Local Law No. 21VDT LawMunicipal Home Rule LawLabor Law PreemptionWorkers' Compensation Law ConflictLocal Government AuthorityLegislative Power RestrictionWorkplace Safety RegulationsVideo Display TerminalsSuffolk County Legislature
References
18
Showing 1-9 of 9 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