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. 2023 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Iwuchukwu (Active Transp. Servs.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves an appeal by Active Transport Services (ATS) from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board ruled that Godwin Iwuchukwu, a delivery driver for ATS, was an employee and eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and that ATS was liable for contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed these decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, based on ATS's control over drivers, and that Iwuchukwu had not voluntarily left employment without good cause, as he cited a lack of work.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriverLogistics BrokerSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Benefits EligibilityVoluntary Leaving EmploymentDisqualifying MisconductAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 2016-1618 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2019

Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Active Care Medical Supply Corp. against American Transit Ins. Co. regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, an assignee of Luciano Ernesto, sought summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved to either dismiss the complaint or hold the action in abeyance. The defendant argued that Luciano Ernesto might be eligible for workers' compensation benefits, thus requiring a determination from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Civil Court granted the defendant's cross-motion to hold the action in abeyance. The Appellate Term affirmed this decision, reiterating that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law and that courts should defer to the Board's determination.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceAppellate TermSummary JudgmentEligibility DisputeFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance CoverageAssignor-Assignee
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 1994

Active Glass Corp. v. Architectural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union 580

Active Glass Corp. sought to enjoin a labor arbitration demanded by Iron Union and Iron Funds, proposing instead a multiparty arbitration with Glaziers and Carpenters unions and their respective funds. Iron cross-moved to compel bilateral arbitration with Active, while Glaziers and Carpenters sought dismissal of Active's petition. The court confirmed the existence of an arbitration agreement between Active and Iron for the underlying dispute. Citing recent Second Circuit precedent, the court ruled it lacked authority to compel multiparty arbitration absent the parties' explicit consent. Consequently, Active's motion for preliminary injunction and multiparty arbitration was denied, and Iron's motion to compel bilateral arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentMultiparty ArbitrationBilateral ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictional DisputeContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Connolly

This case concerns an appeal by Tracy Dawn Allen, an employee who was robbed and sexually assaulted at her workplace, Traci Connolly d/b/a Traci Connolly Insurance. Allen sued her employer for negligence, alleging a failure to provide a safe workplace and adequate training on an alarm system. The trial court granted summary judgment for Connolly, finding no foreseeable risk of harm. The appellate court, presided over by Justice KEM THOMPSON FROST, affirmed this decision. The court applied the foreseeability analysis from Timberwalk Apartments, Partners, Inc. v. Cain to the employer-employee context, concluding that Connolly had no reason to foresee a violent criminal act on her premises, thus negating a duty of care. The court found Allen's evidence of prior criminal activity insufficient to establish foreseeability.

negligenceforeseeabilitypremises liabilityemployer liabilitysummary judgmentthird-party criminal actssafe workplacesexual assaultaggravated robberyTexas law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortega v. City of New York

This case addresses whether a plaintiff seeking summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim must establish foreseeability as part of their prima facie case. Plaintiff Cesar Ortega was injured during the Second Avenue Subway Tunnel Construction Project when a tremie rack, acting as an elevated work platform, tipped over. The Supreme Court denied Ortega's motion for partial summary judgment, citing issues of foreseeability and the lack of expert testimony. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, holding that foreseeability is generally not required for Labor Law § 240 (1) claims, except in cases involving the collapse of permanent structures. The court clarified that a plaintiff only needs to show injury during a covered activity due to inadequate safety devices, and found that the tremie rack's unsecured state constituted a failure to provide adequate protection against a gravity-related hazard.

Labor Law § 240 (1)ForeseeabilitySummary JudgmentScaffold LawElevation-related hazardConstruction accidentTremie rackAppellate DivisionNew York Labor LawPrima facie case
References
17
Case No. NO. 14-03-00622-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2005

Tracy Dawn Allen v. Traci Connolly D/ba/ Traci Connolly Insurance, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

In this summary-judgment case, the court addresses whether there was a foreseeable risk of harm giving rise to an employer's duty to protect employees from the criminal acts of third parties. Appellant Tracy Dawn Allen challenges the trial court's summary judgment in favor of her former employer, appellee Traci Connolly d/b/a Traci Connolly Insurance. Allen, an employee, was robbed and sexually assaulted by an armed assailant at work. She alleged Connolly failed to provide a safe workplace and proper training for a security system. Connolly successfully argued in the trial court that no foreseeable risk of harm existed, and thus, no duty was owed under the Timberwalk standard. The appellate court, applying the Timberwalk analysis, found insufficient evidence of prior similar criminal activity to establish foreseeability of a violent act. Consequently, the court concluded that Allen's negligence claim against Connolly fails and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Summary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityThird-Party Criminal ActsForeseeability of HarmNegligenceSafe WorkplaceSexual AssaultAggravated RobberySecurity System
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of General Elec. Co. (Elec., Etc., Workers)

A union sought to arbitrate a claim that a company violated an anti-discrimination provision of their collective bargaining agreement by not providing pension credits for time spent on union activities beyond the hours for which the company had agreed to pay. The collective bargaining agreement allowed for arbitration of disputes over its provisions but was silent on pensions. The court ruled that no bona fide dispute existed, as the anti-discrimination clause could not be used to force a change in a separate agreement about paid union time. The court reasoned that providing pension credits for unpaid union activity would discriminate in favor of union representatives, an obligation the company did not have. Therefore, there was no valid ground for arbitration, and the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationPension CreditsAnti-Discrimination ClauseUnion ActivityEmployee BenefitsLabor DisputeAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationNew York State Law
References
2
Case No. ADJ8 156794
Regular
Jan 12, 2017

NURY PEREZ vs. BLUE RIVER DENIM, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding an order that dismissed a lien claim due to a failure to pay a $100 lien activation fee. The lien claimant, Premier Psychological Services (PPS), claims computer issues prevented timely payment. While the WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration, the WCAB may rescind the dismissal if PPS pays the activation fee within ten days of this notice. If paid, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code section 4903.06WCABadministrative law judgereconsiderationrescissiondismissallien conferenceCompromise and Releaseindustrial injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ6981750
Regular
Jan 13, 2017

GUMERSINDO DELEON vs. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC.

This case concerns a lien claimant's failure to pay a $100.00 lien activation fee required by Labor Code section 4903.06 by the date of a lien conference. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding the order dismissing the lien, but only if the fee is paid within ten days of this notice. The WCAB's intention is based on a court order allowing lien activation fees to be paid between November 9, 2015, and December 31, 2015, and the lien claimant's assertion of computer problems. If payment is received, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code Section 4903.06ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimWCJDWCAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionNinth CircuitVacating injunction
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lafferty v. Manhasset Medical Center Hospital

This case addresses an alleged medical malpractice involving a mismatched blood transfusion to Anna E. Lafferty, resulting in claims for emotional anguish by her daughter-in-law, Helen M. Lafferty, who witnessed and participated in the event. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss Helen M. Lafferty's claims, arguing that her active involvement placed her within a foreseeable "zone of psychic danger," establishing a direct duty of care owed to her by the hospital. The decision indicates a willingness to expand liability in New York for psychic injury to active participants, moving beyond traditional bystander limitations.

Medical MalpracticeEmotional DistressPsychic TraumaBystander RecoveryZone of DangerForeseeabilityNegligenceWrongful DeathPersonal InjuryDuty of Care
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 2,034 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