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
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
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. E2015-01060-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2016

H & J Ditching & Excavating, Inc. v. Cornerstone Community Bank

H & J Ditching & Excavating, Inc. (Contractor) sued Cornerstone Community Bank (Lender) alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation regarding a construction loan for a subdivision project. Contractor claimed Lender falsely assured them the loan was fully funded and they would be paid. The trial court granted summary judgment to Lender, finding no false statements and that Contractor's failure to obtain an engineer's certificate of final completion was the proximate cause of their alleged injury. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that the loan was substantially funded and that the lack of a required completion certificate was the reason for the non-payment. The appellate court also upheld the denial of Contractor's motion to amend its complaint, deeming the amendment futile.

MisrepresentationNegligent MisrepresentationIntentional MisrepresentationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract DisputeCondition PrecedentProximate CauseConstruction LoanForeclosure
References
16
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between A.F.C.O. Metals, Inc. & Local Union 580 of International Ass'n of Bridge

This case concerns a dispute between Local Union 580 and AFCO Metals, Inc. regarding arbitration of pension fund contributions. Local 580 claimed AFCO underpaid contributions by assigning work to Carpenters Unions that should have been allocated to Local 580 members. AFCO sought to stay arbitration, arguing the dispute was jurisdictional and excluded from arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court initially dismissed AFCO's petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding the dispute jurisdictional. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, ruling that the underlying dispute is a jurisdictional matter, which the parties explicitly agreed to exclude from arbitration provisions in their collective bargaining agreement.

ArbitrationJurisdictional DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementPension FundsUnion ContributionsWork AssignmentAppellate ReviewLabor LawContract InterpretationFund Delinquency
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01159
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Matter of American Bridge Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a lower court's decision denying American Bridge Company's (AB) petition to annul a determination by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). AB, a contractor for the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), sought additional compensation for redesigning a protective shield on the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge due to a discrepancy in vertical clearance measurements. However, the contract explicitly required AB to verify all existing dimensions, noting that DOT's figures were approximate. The court concluded that the contract unambiguously placed the responsibility for verifying dimensions on the contractor, and DOT had not made any bad faith misrepresentations, thereby affirming the denial of additional costs.

Contract DisputeConstruction ContractPublic WorksContract InterpretationRisk AllocationField MeasurementsBid DocumentsMisrepresentationAdministrative AppealArticle 78 Proceeding
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Lane & Leather Workers' Union of the United States

The case involves an appeal by an employer against a Special Term order compelling arbitration of disputes with a petitioner (union) following the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. Disputes originated in January 1947 over roller wages, leading to a work stoppage in March that was settled by an agreement to arbitrate. A second dispute arose over the discharge of three employees, also demanded for arbitration. After the contract expired on June 1, 1947, the employer contended its obligation to arbitrate ceased. The Special Term ruled that the duty to arbitrate disputes arising during the contract term survived its expiration. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, specifying that arbitration should be limited to grievances pending before the contract's expiry on May 31, 1947.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWage DisputeWork StoppageEmployee DischargeContract ExpirationArbitrabilityAppellate ReviewLabor LawPanel Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Micamold Radio Corp. v. Beedie

This case addresses a plaintiff's request for an injunction in a labor dispute. The court examined the retroactive application and constitutionality of Chapter 477 of the Laws of 1935, which amended the Civil Practice Act by adding section 876-a, outlining specific conditions for issuing injunctions in such disputes. The new law imposes rigorous requirements, including findings of unlawful acts, irreparable injury, and a lack of adequate public protection. After reviewing various legal precedents on statutory retroactivity, the court determined that the 1935 statute affects substantive rights, not merely procedural forms. Consequently, the court concluded that the law cannot be applied retroactively to the plaintiff's pre-existing cause of action, thus ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

injunctionlabor disputestatutory interpretationretroactivityCivil Practice ActSection 876-aequitable reliefsubstantive lawprocedural lawworker rights
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stalban v. Friedman

This Per Curiam decision addresses a labor dispute where the plaintiff sought injunctive relief against defendant unions, despite the union members not being directly employed by the plaintiff. The court determined that a labor dispute, as defined by Civil Practice Act, § 876-a, subd. 10, was indeed involved. Due to the plaintiff's failure to adequately plead or prove facts mandated by section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, injunctive relief could not be granted. The decision emphasizes that the ruling of the State Labor Relations Board regarding collective bargaining agency did not influence this outcome. Consequently, the judgment was unanimously reversed, and the complaint dismissed with costs.

Labor Dispute LawInjunctive Relief DeniedCivil Practice Act § 876-aPleading SufficiencyCollective Bargaining IssuesUnion MembershipAppellate ReversalComplaint DismissalCourt Costs AwardedPer Curiam Opinion
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,824 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