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
Feb 04, 1994

Foster v. Spevack

Richard Foster, an employee of Davis-Fetch Acoustical Corp., sustained injuries from a slip and fall on ice in a shopping center parking lot owned by Spevack and Statewide Plaza Shopping Centre. Spevack had contracted Fred Tontarski and Fabco for snow removal. Foster fell while attempting to urinate behind a building being renovated by Edward Irish Construction, Inc. and Davis-Fetch, having been directed there due to lack of bathroom facilities. Plaintiffs sued Spevack, Tontarski, and Fabco for negligence and later amended their complaint to include Labor Law violations. The court discusses various motions for summary judgment concerning Labor Law § 200 and § 241 (6) claims, contribution, and indemnification among the parties. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, affirming in part, specifically addressing issues of standing under the Labor Law, breach of common-law duty by Davis-Fetch, and the requirement to allege specific safety regulations for Labor Law § 241 (6) claims.

Slip and FallIce HazardParking Lot AccidentConstruction Site SafetyLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)NegligenceIndemnificationContributionSummary Judgment
References
12
Case No. CV-24-1581
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of John Foster

Claimant John Foster was injured in May 2020, and the carrier accepted liability for his facial injuries. In 2023, Foster sought treatment for new conditions, including a traumatic brain injury and post-concussion syndrome, which he linked to the original accident. The carrier argued the claim for these new conditions was time-barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 28, but the Workers' Compensation Board disagreed, finding that initial medical records provided sufficient notice of a claim within the two-year period, documenting symptoms like lightheadedness and head pain immediately after the accident. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the two-year limitation does not preclude amending a timely claim to include consequential injuries.

Workers' Compensation LawStatute of LimitationsTimeliness of ClaimTraumatic Brain InjuryPost-concussion SyndromeConsequential InjuriesMedical RecordsNotice RequirementsAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1988

Richiusa v. Kahn Lumber & Millwork Co.

Cologero Richiusa suffered personal injuries at Flushing Truck Repair Co. and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits as an employee of Kahn Lumber & Millwork Co., Inc. Richiusa then initiated a negligence action against both Flushing Truck and Kahn Lumber. The Supreme Court denied both defendants' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was reversed, with the appellate court concluding that the workers' compensation award served as an exclusive remedy against Kahn and that Richiusa was a special employee of Flushing Truck, thereby barring the action against both defendants. The complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewNegligenceEmployment StatusStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06423 [188 AD3d 1378]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Foster v. FedEx Frgt. Inc.

The case involves an appeal by FedEx Freight Inc. from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that established claimant James Foster's average weekly wage using a 260 multiple. Foster was injured at work, and the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined his average weekly wage based on working "substantially the whole of the year," despite working 225 days, which is less than the traditional 234-day guideline. The Board affirmed, asserting its discretion to find that 225 days constituted "substantially the whole of the year" for a five-day worker under Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (1). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the statute does not require a specific number of days for this finding and that the Board's calculation was supported by substantial evidence.

Average Weekly WageWorkers' Compensation Law § 14Substantially Whole of the Year260 MultipleWage CalculationAppellate Division DecisionWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewStatutory InterpretationFull-time EmploymentFive-day Worker
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 1968

Claim of Fries v. Ridge Lumber, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision. The Board affirmed a compensation award for accidental frostbite of both feet for claimant Fries, a truck driver for Ridge Lumber, Inc., from January 12, 1968, to April 8, 1968. However, the Board rescinded payments after this date and restored the claim for further proceedings regarding subsequent disability. The appellants contended that temperatures were higher than claimed and noted a lack of medical evidence regarding causal relationship. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the claim for further proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of medical testimony on causal relation.

Workers' CompensationFrostbiteCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceDisability BenefitsTruck DriverYard WorkerRemittalAppellate DivisionBoard Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Choto v. Consolidated Lumber Transport, Inc.

The claimant, an owner-operator of a truck and trailer, suffered multiple injuries in April 2006 after falling from a loaded flatbed trailer. He subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim, listing Consolidated Lumber Transportation, Inc. as his employer. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board determined that an employee-employer relationship existed. On appeal, the court found insufficient substantial evidence to support the Board's finding, noting that the claimant owned and maintained his equipment, paid his own expenses and insurance, was issued an IRS 1099 form, and had flexibility in choosing loads. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Employee ClassificationIndependent Contractor StatusWorkers' Compensation AppealControl Test FactorsFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsSubstantial Evidence ReviewRemittal OrderTruck Driver InjuryLeased EquipmentSelf-Employment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1973

In re Jones

This case concerns the foster care status of Marie Jones, born November 17, 1965, who was placed in foster care with the Commissioner of Social Services in 1968 and subsequently surrendered for adoption by her natural parents in 1969. Marie has lived continuously with her foster parents, Mabel and William Oliver, since 1968 and has developed deep emotional ties with their family. A hearing was held pursuant to Social Services Law section 392 to review her foster care status and determine her best interests. The maternal grandparents, who had regular visitation, initially sought increased visitation but later requested custody and opposed the adoption by the foster parents. The court, considering all testimony and circumstances, found it was in Marie's best interest to remain with her foster parents and ordered her placed for adoption in their home, while also allowing continued grandparent visitation.

Foster CareAdoptionChild CustodySocial Services LawBest Interest of the ChildGrandparents' RightsParental RightsDe Facto ParentFamily LawSurrender Instrument
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1976

In re Louis F.

This proceeding was initiated by foster parents under Social Services Law section 392 to review the foster care status of the child Louis F., aiming to free him for adoption. Respondents, the Department of Social Services, Catholic Home Bureau, and the natural mother, sought to continue foster care, with the agency planning for the child's discharge to the natural mother. The foster parents moved for prehearing disclosure of various records related to the child and his natural parents, which the Family Court denied for lack of sufficient necessity. The Appellate Division affirmed this denial. The court reiterated that while foster parents, as parties in a foster care review, may obtain disclosure upon a proper showing of necessity coupled with in camera viewing by the Family Court, in this instance, after its own appellate in camera review, it found no abuse of discretion in the Family Court's decision.

Foster CareChild WelfareSocial Services LawDisclosureIn Camera InspectionFamily CourtAppellate ReviewBest Interest of the ChildParental RightsAdoption Proceedings
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tower Insurance v. Mike's Pipe Yard & Building Supply Corp.

An insurer (Plaintiff) filed a motion for summary judgment to disclaim coverage for an underlying personal injury action, citing the insured's (Mike’s Pipe Yard and Building Supply) failure to provide timely notice of an occurrence as stipulated in the liability insurance policy. The insured had initially informed its broker about the incident, assuming the broker acted as the insurer's agent; however, no such principal-agent relationship existed. The trial court initially denied the plaintiff's motion, but the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the plaintiff's motion and declaring that the plaintiff had no duty to defend or indemnify in the underlying action due to the untimely notification.

Insurance Coverage DisputeTimely Notice ProvisionDisclaimer of CoverageSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance Broker AgencyDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyPersonal Injury Action
References
1
Case No. ADJ1760143
Regular
Aug 12, 2010

JAMES FREDRICKSON vs. FOSTER LUMBER YARD, HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CMS a.k.a. SEDGWICK SACRAMENTO

This order denies reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board adopted the WCJ's report as the basis for denial. The Board also retroactively deemed the petition timely filed due to administrative oversight preventing earlier review. The petition for reconsideration is therefore denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeLab. Code§ 5909Due ProcessTimely FiledShipley v. WCABState Farm Fire and Casualty v. WCAB (Felts)Denial of Reconsideration
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 325 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