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
Dec 01, 1997

Ercole v. Academy Fence Co.

Daniel Ercole sustained serious personal injuries on May 27, 1994, while repairing a malfunctioning hydraulic lift gate on a truck owned by Academy Fence Company, Inc. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, initially denied Academy Fence's motion for summary judgment to dismiss Ercole's complaint. However, on appeal, the court reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to Academy Fence. The appellate court determined that Academy Fence owed no duty to warn Ercole, an expert in hydraulic lift repair, of readily discernible dangers. It held that a worker confronting ordinary and obvious hazards, with time and resources to proceed safely, cannot hold others responsible for self-inflicted injuries due to incautious performance. Consequently, Ercole's complaint was dismissed.

NegligencePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentDuty to WarnObvious HazardWorker ExpertiseHydraulic Lift Gate AccidentSuffolk County Supreme CourtAppellate DivisionEmployer Responsibility
References
3
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07059
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2017

Schiferle v. Capital Fence Co., Inc.

This case addresses the waivability of statutory attorney's fees in a wage nonpayment claim under Labor Law article 6. William Schiferle, a salesman for Capital Fence Co., Inc., sued for unpaid commissions. The parties agreed to binding arbitration, and Schiferle waived his right to attorney's fees, though he could request them at the arbitrator's discretion. The arbitrator awarded commissions but denied attorney's fees and pre-award interest. Schiferle appealed, arguing the denial of fees violated public policy and constituted a manifest disregard of the law. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that a wage claimant can validly waive their right to attorney's fees under Labor Law § 198, particularly when the waiver is made retrospectively and without coercion in exchange for the benefits of arbitration.

Wage NonpaymentLabor Law § 198Attorney's Fees WaiverArbitration AgreementPublic PolicyManifest Disregard of LawContractual WaiverAppellate ReviewBinding ArbitrationCPLR Article 75
References
48
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25017 [86 Misc 3d 590]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2025

D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc.

Plaintiff Victor D'Arrigo was injured at a construction site when a pneumatic post driver tool, a 'Rhino,' dislodged from a fence post and struck him. D'Arrigo brought an action asserting a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), claiming a failure to provide adequate safety devices against gravity-related hazards. The court, presided over by Justice Aaron D. Maslow, found the accident to be an unusual and unforeseeable occurrence not contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (1). Consequently, plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment was denied, and the defendants' motions to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint in its entirety were granted. Furthermore, the court granted the third-party defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the third-party complaint, noting that the plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11 and there was no contractual indemnity agreement.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Falling Object InjuryPneumatic Post DriverSummary Judgment MotionWorksite SafetyUnforeseeable HazardWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryContractual Indemnification
References
30
Case No. ADJ7259699
Regular
Jan 27, 2012

ROGELIO JURADO vs. CARTER FENCE CO., INC.

The Appeals Board denied Carter Fence's petition for removal because the objection to the declaration of readiness to proceed was untimely. Carter Fence failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's decision to keep the matter off calendar. The Board noted it's an extraordinary remedy, requiring more than mere disagreement. Furthermore, it was unclear if the employer's counsel had the authority to file the DOR for all listed issues.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedSerious and Willful MisconductLabor Code section 132aUntimely ObjectionJudicial EconomySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pelham Fence Co., Inc.

Lilliam Roberts, Commissioner of Labor for New York, moved for a declaratory judgment to establish that she is not barred by an automatic bankruptcy stay from pursuing funds withheld from the debtor, Pelham Fence Co., Inc., by the New York State Department of Audit and Control (DAC). The Commissioner argued these funds were not part of the bankruptcy estate. Alternatively, she sought relief from the stay, citing a lack of equity in the fund (approximately $57,000 against liens exceeding $600,000). The Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee opposed the motion, contending the funds were estate property and that he might avoid prior liens for the estate's benefit. The court, citing precedents regarding segregated funds and lack of debtor equity, granted the Commissioner's motion, ruling that the withheld funds, subject to a pre-petition withholding order, do not constitute property of the bankruptcy estate and are not subject to the automatic stay.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayProperty of the EstateDeclaratory JudgmentWithheld FundsLabor LawNew York StateChapter 7Lien AvoidancePrevailing Wage
References
5
Case No. ADJ2510198
Regular
Jul 28, 2011

ANGEL RIVERA vs. FREMONT FENCE, ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant, Fremont Fence and Endurance Insurance Company, filed an untimely petition for removal seeking to reopen discovery. The petition was filed one day after the deadline, which was June 8, 2011, because the order closing discovery was personally served on the defendant's counsel. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition due to its untimeliness.

Petition for RemovalUntimely PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAgreed Medical EvaluatorCross-examinationSupplemental ReportClose of DiscoveryMandatory Settlement ConferencePersonal ServiceCode of Civil Procedure 1013
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Iron Workers District Council of Western New York & Vicinity Welfare & Pension Funds v. Butler Fence Co.

In this lawsuit, plaintiffs Iron Workers District Council of Western New York and Vicinity Welfare and Pension Funds sued defendant Butler Fence Co., Inc. under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). The core dispute revolves around whether an oral modification limited the scope of a 1986 collective bargaining agreement to a specific project, impacting Butler's obligation to make fringe benefit contributions. The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, an order compelling document production, and to dismiss Butler's counterclaim alleging fraudulent inducement by the union. The court denied summary judgment due to unresolved factual issues concerning the oral modification. It also denied the motion to dismiss the counterclaim, ruling it was governed by LMRA and not preempted by ERISA. The discovery motion was denied without prejudice, to be renewed before the magistrate judge.

ERISALMRACollective Bargaining AgreementOral ModificationFringe BenefitsSummary JudgmentFraudulent InducementContractual ObligationBenefit Plan AuditMultiemployer Plan
References
21
Case No. 07-10-00013-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2011

Randy Brown v. Bill Holman and Claytex Properties, Inc.

Randy Brown, an employee of ClayTex Properties, Inc., sued his employer for personal injuries sustained while cleaning a storage building at a shareholder's home. ClayTex, a non-subscriber to workers' compensation insurance, moved for summary judgment, asserting that Brown's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injury. Brown was instructed to park a truck behind a fence but had options to use a gate or lift items over the fence. He chose to repeatedly climb the fence with heavy clay molds, leading to his injury. The trial court granted summary judgment, which the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Brown's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injury because his chosen method of negotiating the fence was not a foreseeable consequence of the employer's instruction to park the truck behind the fence.

Workers' Compensation Non-subscriberSummary JudgmentSole Proximate CausePersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewCause in FactForeseeabilityEmployee NegligenceEmployer LiabilityTexas Court of Appeals
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Holman

Randy Brown, an employee of ClayTex Properties, Inc., sued his employer for personal injuries sustained during employment. ClayTex, a non-subscriber to workers' compensation insurance, moved for summary judgment, arguing Brown's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injury. Brown was instructed to clean a storage building and park a truck behind a fence. He chose to climb a three-rail pipe fence while carrying a sixty-pound clay mold, rather than using a gate or lifting objects over. He slipped and was injured. The trial court granted summary judgment for ClayTex. On appeal, the court reviewed the summary judgment de novo and concluded that Brown's decision to climb the fence with a heavy object was the sole proximate cause of his injury. The employer's instruction to park behind the fence was deemed an inconvenience, not a foreseeable cause of injury. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Summary JudgmentSole Proximate CauseNon-subscriber EmployerPersonal InjuryEmployee ConductAppellate ReviewTexas LawPremises LiabilityEmployer LiabilityNegligence
References
26
Case No. 07-10-00013-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2011

Randy Brown v. Bill Holman and Claytex Properties, Inc.

Randy Brown sued his non-subscribing employer, ClayTex Properties, Inc., for personal injuries sustained while cleaning a storage building. Brown was injured attempting to climb a fence with a sixty-pound clay mold, despite an available gate, to load a pickup truck. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of ClayTex, which argued Brown's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injury. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, concluding that Brown's conduct in climbing the fence with a heavy object was the sole proximate cause of his injury. The court found that the injury was not a foreseeable consequence of the employer's instruction to park the truck behind the fence, which only presented a foreseeable inconvenience or delay.

TexasSummary JudgmentSole Proximate CauseNon-subscriber EmployerPersonal InjuryWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewNegligenceForeseeabilityEmployee Conduct
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 51 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