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

Claim of Wallas v. Mastic Beach Excavation, Inc.

A claimant died of cardiac arrest while working for Mastic Beach Excavation, Inc. and a claim for workers’ compensation death benefits was filed. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found no prima facie medical evidence to support a causally related death. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this decision, concluding that the employer’s carrier successfully rebutted the presumption of a work-related death. The carrier presented the claimant’s death certificate, which cited arteriosclerotic heart disease as the cause, and an independent cardiologist’s report affirming that the death was not work related. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that claimant’s death was not causally related to his employment.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipCardiac ArrestArteriosclerotic Heart DiseasePresumption of CausationRebuttal of PresumptionIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewDeath BenefitsEmployment-Related Death
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2022

Wood v. Baker Bros. Excavating

Clifford Wood, a concrete laborer, sustained injuries after falling approximately three feet from a bridge footing at a work site. He initiated a lawsuit against Baker Brothers Excavating (KER), the general contractor, and Brinnier and Larios, P.C., an engineering firm, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Wood moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. However, the Supreme Court denied his motion, determining that while Wood met his initial burden, KER had raised triable issues of fact concerning the availability and usage of safety equipment and Wood's specific task at the time of the accident. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that factual disputes prevented summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against KER.

Construction accidentFall from heightLabor LawSummary judgmentTriable issues of factWorksite safetyAppellate DivisionGeneral contractorEngineering firmPlaintiff's motion
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06827
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2017

Matter of Bob Bruno Excavating, Inc. v. Reardon

The petitioners, Bob Bruno Excavating, Inc., commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding in the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, seeking to annul a determination by the Commissioner of Labor, Roberta Reardon. The Commissioner's determination found that the petitioners had underpaid their workers on several public works projects. The Appellate Division dismissed the petition, ruling that a party cannot seek review of an administrative determination made on their default. The court stated that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to apply to the Commissioner of Labor to reopen the administrative hearing or vacate the default.

CPLR Article 78Administrative LawJudicial ReviewDefault JudgmentLabor LawPublic WorksUnderpayment of WagesAppellate DivisionAnnulment PetitionRemedy for Default
References
6
Case No. 189 AD3d 1841
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Dimaggio v. Mayrch Excavation Found.

Claimant Ottavio Dimaggio, an Italian-speaking carpenter, sustained a back injury in a 2014 accident, leading to a workers' compensation claim. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) classified him with a permanent partial disability and a 96% loss of wage-earning capacity. Dimaggio sought review from the Workers' Compensation Board, arguing for total disability, but his application was denied due to the Board's finding that his general exception to the WCLJ's oral findings did not meet the "specific objection or exception" requirement of 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (4) (v). The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, holding that counsel's repeated "noting an exception," viewed in context with Dimaggio's confusion, was sufficiently specific. The court concluded the Board abused its discretion in denying the application and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

Workers' Compensation BoardPermanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityApplication for ReviewSpecific ObjectionProcedural ComplianceAppellate DivisionAbuse of DiscretionRemittalOral Findings
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Genen v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

The dissenting opinion addresses the direct liability of Hunter Excavating Corp., a snow removal contractor, for a plaintiff's personal injuries after slipping on ice at a Metro-North station. The dissent argues that Hunter did not owe a direct duty to the plaintiff, as its contract with Metro-North (the landowner) was not a comprehensive maintenance agreement that displaced Metro-North's duty, nor did Hunter's actions launch a new force of harm. The opinion distinguishes this case from precedents where landowners or contractors performing negligent removal were held liable, emphasizing the lack of an independent duty or detrimental reliance by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the dissent contends that Hunter's contract specified service upon notification, and thus no additional duty to continually monitor conditions was imposed. Finally, the dissenting judges considered requests for summary judgment dismissing claims against Hunter (third-party action) and Metro-North (plaintiff's primary action), finding them without merit due to unresolved questions of fact regarding notice to Metro-North and Hunter's contractual indemnification obligation.

Snow removal liabilityIndependent contractor liabilityPremises liabilityDirect liabilityContractual dutySummary judgmentDissenting opinionPersonal injuryNegligenceThird-party action
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carminucci v. Pepsico, Inc.

The intervener plaintiff Madrone Excavating Company, Inc., by its subrogee ITT Hartford Accident Indemnity Company appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The original order determined that New York Workers’ Compensation Law applied, denying full reimbursement to ITT Hartford for benefits paid to Mark T. Carminucci and compelling ITT Hartford to pay a pro rata share of litigation expenses. The appellate court reversed, ruling that Connecticut law applies because benefits were paid under Connecticut's Workers’ Compensation Act. Under Connecticut law, ITT Hartford, as subrogee, is entitled to full reimbursement of both past and the present value of future workers’ compensation benefits. The court further held that ITT Hartford is not required to share litigation expenses on a pro rata basis. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for a hearing to determine the total reimbursement amount.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationReimbursementChoice of LawConnecticut LawNew York LawPersonal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentAppellate ReviewLitigation Expenses
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jock v. Fien

Plaintiff Amos Jock was injured while fabricating a concrete septic tank at his workplace, falling from a steel mold. He, along with his wife, sued his employer Richard Van Petty, Van Petty Excavating, Inc., and building owner Donald L. Fien, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied summary judgment, finding issues of fact, but the Appellate Court disagreed. The Appellate Court held that Mr. Jock was engaged in a normal manufacturing process, not protected building construction or related activities under the cited Labor Law sections. Consequently, his causes of action were dismissed, and the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentBuilding ConstructionManufacturing ProcessSeptic Tank FabricationWorker ProtectionAppellate ReviewScope of Employment
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vaniglia v. Northgate Homes, Northgate Properties, Inc.

Plaintiff Robert Vaniglia sustained serious injuries at a Richmond County construction site on March 30, 1977, due to a backhoe entangling with an electrical conduit. Northgate Homes, the site owner and general contractor, and third-party defendant United Associates Construction & Excavating Corp., which provided the backhoe operator, were found liable. A jury initially awarded Vaniglia $1,500,000 in damages. The appellate court affirmed the findings of liability but deemed the damages excessive. It conditionally reversed the damages award, ordering a new trial unless Vaniglia agreed to reduce the sum to $1,000,000. The judgment against United Associates was affirmed.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentNegligenceLabor Law ViolationApportionment of FaultDamages AssessmentExcessive VerdictConditional ReversalNew Trial on DamagesThird-Party Liability
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25049
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2025

Emery v. Village of Clinton

Plaintiff Robert Emery, an employee of the Town of Kirkland Highway Department, was injured at a construction site in the Village of Clinton while attempting to reinsert a pin into an excavator's thumb to change its functionality. The pin ejected and struck him in the head. Emery and his wife sued the Village of Clinton and John Spinella Excavation Company, Inc. alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 (6). The court dismissed all claims against the Village of Clinton and dismissed the Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 (6) claims against Spinella Excavating. However, the court denied Spinella Excavating's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, allowing these claims to proceed to trial due to unresolved questions of fact regarding Spinella, Sr.'s control and potential breach of duty.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 200Industrial Code ViolationsExcavator SafetySafe Place to WorkSummary JudgmentNegligence LiabilitySupervisory ControlEquipment OperationEmployer Duty
References
45
Case No. ADJ1323538 (SAC 0305102)
Regular
Jul 20, 2010

BRUCE LOCKWOOD vs. C.C. MEYERS, INC., C.C. MEYERS, AN INDIVIDUAL

This case involves an applicant seeking increased compensation due to serious and willful misconduct by his employer, C.C. Meyers, Inc. The applicant sustained significant injuries when an excavator ran over his foot, leading to its amputation. The Appeals Board overturned the Workers' Compensation Judge's denial, finding that the employer's failure to provide a spotter for the excavator constituted serious and willful misconduct. This failure to provide a spotter, coupled with the employer's knowledge of the risks and intentional disregard for safety, was determined to be a proximate cause of the applicant's injury. As a result, the applicant's compensation will be increased by one-half.

Serious and Willful MisconductEmployer LiabilityIndustrial InjuryProximate CauseSafe Place of EmploymentFailure to Provide SpotterExcavator SafetyCalOSHA Safety Order 1592ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 99 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