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. 01-23-00791-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2025

Jose Manuel Lopez Zeferino v. Anderson Morrison Construction, LLC; Anderson Morrision Roofing, LLC; Shawn Morrision; And Morrision Roofing, LLC

Jose Manuel Lopez Zeferino, an employee, sued his employer Anderson Morrison Construction, LLC and affiliates for negligence after falling off a roof. Lopez alleged his employer failed to provide workers' compensation insurance and necessary safety equipment, leading to his injury. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that Lopez was aware of the danger and possessed the needed equipment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that an employee's awareness of a dangerous condition does not negate the employer's duty to provide safe instrumentalities, especially for a nonsubscribing employer. The court determined that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the employer breached its duty.

Personal InjuryNegligenceEmployer LiabilityWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation NonsubscriberLadder AccidentRoofing IndustryDuty to Provide Safe Equipment
References
20
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06327 [175 AD3d 1062]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Pelonero v. Sturm Roofing, LLC

Plaintiff Salvatore Pelonero commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Sturm Roofing, LLC, seeking damages for injuries from a fall at a roofing site. The Supreme Court granted Pelonero's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously reversed this order, denying the plaintiff's motion. The court found that Pelonero failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding whether he was a worker and whether Sturm Roofing, LLC was an owner or contractor liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). Conflicting statements about how the accident occurred also raised an issue of fact. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to meet his burden on the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim lacked the necessary specific Industrial Code violations.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentRoofing WorkCredibility IssueProximate CauseSafety DevicesIndustrial CodeCommon-Law Negligence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Striegel v. Hillcrest Heights Development Corp.

Plaintiff Robert Striegel sought partial summary judgment against Hillcrest Heights Development Corporation under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) for injuries sustained from a fall while working on a sloped roof. Striegel, an employee of Sahlem's Roofing and Siding, slipped on a frost-covered sub-roof, fell, and slid down the roof, alleging that Hillcrest, as owner and general contractor, failed to provide safety devices. Defendants argued that the injury was from lifting or that the fall was onto the roof surface, not from an elevated height, citing White v Sperry Supply & Warehouse. The court distinguished White, finding that the sloped roof in this case made the fall directly related to gravity, thus falling within the purview of Labor Law § 240(1). Consequently, the court granted Striegel partial summary judgment on liability and also granted Hillcrest a conditional judgment for common-law indemnification against Sahlem’s, finding no active negligence on Hillcrest's part.

Construction AccidentSummary JudgmentLiabilityIndemnificationLabor LawElevated Work SiteGravity-Related HazardRoofingFall ProtectionPersonal Injury
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01392 [214 AD3d 1332]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2023

Matter of Niagara Falls Captains & Lieutenants Assn. (City of Niagara Falls)

The Niagara Falls Captains and Lieutenants Association, as petitioner, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Niagara County, which denied their petition to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration award had previously denied the association's grievances against the City of Niagara Falls. The petitioner contended that the award should be vacated because it failed to meet the standards of finality and definiteness required by CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the lower court's order, emphasizing the extremely limited judicial review of arbitration awards. The court found that the award sufficiently defined the parties' rights and obligations regarding the alleged violation of their collective bargaining agreement or past practice concerning the filling of six vacancies by the City. Ultimately, the court concluded that the award was definite and final, resolving the submitted controversy without creating new ambiguities.

Arbitration AwardVacate AwardFinalityDefinitenessCPLR 7511Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievancesJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionPublic Sector Employment
References
9
Case No. 2015-06-0248
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2015

Orellana, Jose v. Vazquez Roofing and Five Points Roofing

Jose Orellana, an employee of Vazquez Roofing, suffered a head injury and fractured right arm after falling from a ladder on March 30, 2015, in the course of his employment. The Workers' Compensation Court at Nashville determined that Mr. Orellana was an employee, not an independent contractor. As Vazquez Roofing lacked valid workers' compensation insurance, Five Points Roofing, as the statutory employer, and its carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance, were ordered to pay for Mr. Orellana's medical care. Claims against Plaza Insurance were dismissed as their policy with Vazquez Roofing had been canceled. However, Mr. Orellana's request for temporary disability benefits was denied due to insufficient evidence regarding the duration of his disability.

Workers' CompensationEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability DenialStatutory EmployerInsurance LiabilitySubcontractorFall InjuryArm Fracture
References
9
Case No. 163 AD3d 1496
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2018

Provens v. Ben-Fall Dev., LLC

Plaintiff John O. Provens sustained injuries after falling from a roof on which he had been working, allegedly due to detached "toe boards." Plaintiffs commenced an action under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and partially granted defendant David Alen Sattora's cross-motion, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against him. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously modified the order. The Appellate Division granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, finding the failure of the safety device was a violation as a matter of law. It also reinstated the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action against Sattora, asserting plaintiffs had standing and Sattora failed to establish prima facie entitlement to dismissal. Furthermore, the court granted Sattora's cross-motion to dismiss the Ben-Fall defendants' cross claims for common-law and contractual indemnification, concluding Sattora was not actively negligent for common-law indemnification and no valid contractual indemnification agreement existed for the relevant work.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentIndemnificationAppellate DivisionConstruction Site SafetyRoofing AccidentProximate CauseSafety Device FailureCross ClaimsContractual Indemnification
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pedro Gonzalez & Maria Gomez v. Vatr Construction LLC & All American Roofing & Construction

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a general contractor, VATR Construction, LLC (VC), and a subcontractor, All American Roofing & Construction, in a lawsuit brought by the Estate of Roger Alexis Gonzalez. Gonzalez, a roofer, suffered fatal injuries after falling from a roof due to not using safety equipment. The Estate alleged negligence, gross negligence, and negligence per se against VC and All American. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that neither VC nor All American owed a contractual duty or exercised actual control over Gonzalez's work or safety, and that OSHA regulations do not establish negligence per se in this context. Furthermore, the court rejected the Estate's argument that Gonzalez was a third-party beneficiary of upstream contracts, concluding that summary judgment was properly granted on all claims.

Construction AccidentFatal InjuryRooferFall ProtectionSafety EquipmentNegligenceGross NegligenceNegligence Per SeSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor Liability
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John Schepanski Roofing & Gutters v. Roberts

The petitioners, John Schepanski Roofing & Gutters (Schepanski) and Prestige Roofing & Siding Co. (Prestige), sought judicial review of an order from the Commissioner of Labor of the State of New York, dated November 13, 1986. The original order found Schepanski willfully failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements to 19 employees during a roofing project at Suffolk County public schools, resulting in $282,240.46 in underpayments, and assessed a civil penalty of $35,000. Prestige was also held liable for its subcontractor's (Schepanski's) failure. The court granted the petitions and annulled the Commissioner's order, remitting the matter for further proceedings. While acknowledging substantial evidence for willful non-payment and improper record-keeping, the court determined that the respondent's method for calculating underpaid wages and supplements lacked a rational basis. Specifically, the respondent failed to credit Schepanski for some payments made, used an incorrect last day of work, and made an irrational inference about the number of workers present. As a result, the assessed civil penalty must also be reconsidered.

Prevailing WageWage UnderpaymentLabor Law ViolationCivil PenaltyJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingSubcontractor LiabilityRecord KeepingRational BasisRemittal
References
6
Case No. 08-20-00025-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2022

Ceci Ibarra v. Noah's Roofing and Construction

This case involves an appeal by Cecilia Ibarra against a judgment favoring Noah’s Roofing & Construction regarding a residential roofing and repairs contract. Ibarra argued that she was discharged from her payment obligations because Noah's Roofing allegedly committed a prior, material breach by performing unworkmanlike work. The trial court, however, found that Ibarra had certified the work as completed to her satisfaction and subsequently materially breached the contract by refusing to pay. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's findings and conclusions, ultimately affirming the judgment, concluding that Noah's Roofing performed its contractual obligations and Ibarra failed to prove a prior material breach or a breach of implied warranty.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractMaterial BreachWorkmanlike MannerAffirmative DefenseSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewTrial Court JudgmentCertification of WorkNon-payment
References
21
Case No. 2019-06-0815
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2019

Stewart, Michael v. Don Kennedy Roofing

Michael Stewart, an employee of Don Kennedy Roofing, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing challenging the denial of his workers' compensation claim. He alleged a shoulder injury from a fall on a wet restroom floor at work on March 26, 2019. Don Kennedy Roofing denied the claim, asserting Mr. Stewart did not fall as described and presenting edited video surveillance footage and testimonies to support their position. The Court found the employer's video editing troubling but noted Mr. Stewart failed to provide contradictory evidence. The Court denied Mr. Stewart's requested relief, ruling that he was unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits due to insufficient evidence.

Workplace InjuryFall AccidentShoulder InjuryExpedited HearingDenial of ClaimSurveillance VideoEmployee TestimonyEmployer DefenseBurden of ProofMedical Benefits
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,262 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