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
Aug 08, 1975

Flynn v. Mario & Di Bono Plastering Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on August 8, 1975, denying the third-party defendant’s motion for an order of preclusion or to compel plaintiffs and the third-party plaintiff to provide certain particulars. The underlying case involves a wrongful death claim by plaintiffs, whose testate iron worker allegedly died from lung cancer due to asbestos exposure at a construction site. The plaintiffs alleged negligence against the manufacturer and supplier of the asbestos product for failing to comply with statutes, rules, and regulations. The third-party plaintiff, in turn, charged the appellant (third-party defendant) with similar violations. The appellate court unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, directing the plaintiffs-respondents and third-party plaintiff-respondent to furnish a further bill of particulars. The decision highlighted the requirement in tort actions to specifically identify any statutory violations asserted.

asbestos exposurewrongful deathlung cancerstatutory violationbill of particularsnegligencethird-party claimappellate reviewmotion to precludecause of action
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Porcelli v. PMA Associates

Claimant sought workers' compensation death benefits for her husband's death from respiratory failure, alleging it was an occupational disease from toxic chemical exposure during his 30+ years as a printer. A WCLJ initially awarded benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board later precluded the claimant's medical expert's report and testimony due to untimely filing under 12 NYCRR 300.2 (d) (12). This preclusion led the Board to find no established causal relationship, closing the case without benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding adequate support for precluding the expert's evidence due to procedural non-compliance.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseDeath BenefitsMedical ExpertReport PreclusionTimely FilingProcedural RuleCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04286 [219 AD3d 1154]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2023

Primosch v. Peroxychem, LLC

This case involves an appeal from an order denying parts of the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims, and granting plaintiffs summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed the order, dismissing the plaintiffs' Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims. The dissent argued that the plaintiff's activity of cleaning electrical substation equipment, which involved specialized equipment, climbing ladders to significant heights, and was performed annually or less frequently in a high-voltage environment, constituted "cleaning" under Labor Law § 240 (1). The majority, however, found that the activity was not covered under the Labor Law, suggesting the risk stemmed from high voltage rather than gravity. The court also considered the applicability of Labor Law § 241 (6) regarding construction work, concluding that the plaintiff's work was not routine maintenance in a non-construction context.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetyElevation RiskCleaning ActivitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIndustrial AccidentRoutine MaintenanceSpecialized EquipmentHigh Voltage
References
10
Case No. WCB G074 4160
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2013

Matter of Qualls v. Bronx District Attorney's Office

Claimant William Sanchez sustained a work-related injury to his left knee and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. After two surgeries, his treating physician determined he reached maximum medical improvement and released him to return to work with restrictions. Sanchez then obtained an order of preclusion due to the employer/carrier's failure to provide medical evidence. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this order and rescinded the preclusion order because the employer/carrier provided the required medical evidence before the preclusion order was issued. The employer/carrier appeals the finding that the claimant's period of temporary total disability extends beyond the date of maximum medical improvement.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsKnee InjuryMaximum Medical ImprovementPreclusion OrderAppellate DivisionMedical EvidenceTemporary Total DisabilityWork-Related InjurySedgwick CMS
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Casas v. Consolidated Edison Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on October 3, 2011, which declared the defendant's answer stricken due to non-compliance with a conditional preclusion order from October 31, 2006, and limited the trial to the issue of damages. This order was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for not complying with discovery requests and did not present a meritorious defense, which was necessary to vacate the preclusion order. The court also clarified that a Workers' Compensation Board panel decision dated August 28, 2009, regarding the plaintiff's accident-related disability, does not have preclusive effect. Additionally, a prior decision and order of this Court, entered on April 9, 2013, was recalled and vacated.

Discovery SanctionsStriking AnswerConditional Preclusion OrderSelf-Executing OrderMeritorious DefenseReasonable ExcuseWorkers' Compensation BoardPreclusive EffectAppellate ReviewRecall and Vacate Order
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Olistin v. Wellington

Claimant, a driver for Winthrop Car Service, sought workers' compensation benefits after a 1995 automobile accident. Winthrop Car Service, the employer, failed to appear at multiple hearings, leading to a preclusion order against presenting witnesses. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied Winthrop's request to vacate the preclusion order and found an employer-employee relationship existed, awarding benefits to the claimant. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. On appeal, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying Winthrop's request to vacate the preclusion order, citing lack of explanation for their non-appearance. The court also affirmed the Board's finding of an employment relationship, noting Winthrop's control over the claimant's day-to-day work activities.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorAutomobile AccidentPreclusion OrderAdjournmentExcusable NeglectAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceControl Test
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gallo v. Village of Bronxville Police Department

Claimant, a police sergeant, filed for workers' compensation benefits after suffering a myocardial infarction on December 18, 2008. He experienced symptoms after exercising and ascending stairs at work, leading to a diagnosis of myocardial infarction. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the infarction was caused by the stair climbing and arose out of his employment. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's ruling, citing substantial medical evidence from two cardiologists who opined that the work-related stair climbing precipitated the myocardial infarction, even with a preexisting coronary artery disease.

myocardial infarctionwork-related injuryworkers' compensationaccidental injurymedical causationpreexisting conditionstair climbingpolice sergeantappealBoard decision
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dean v. United States

The government sought reconsideration of the grant of Kevin Dean's coram nobis petition, arguing preclusion and requesting discovery on three elements for coram nobis relief. The court rejected the government's preclusion argument as waived and without merit. It denied discovery on 'continuing legal consequences' and 'compelling reasons,' finding Dean's job termination a clear civil consequence and actual innocence not a prerequisite for the writ. However, the court granted the government's request for discovery on the element of 'undue delay,' allowing inquiry into Dean's awareness of the conviction's collateral civil consequences prior to his termination.

Coram NobisReconsideration MotionExpungement of RecordDue ProcessGuilty PleaCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataCriminal Record AccuracyPublic LewdnessCivil Consequences
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 1997

Claim of Susi v. Bermil Contracting Co.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding death benefits. The claimant’s decedent suffered a compensable knee injury in 1980 and later died in 1990 from a fall caused by his knee buckling while on a ladder. The Board denied death benefits, ruling that the death was not causally related to the 1980 injury because the decedent's act of climbing the ladder with a known unstable knee was unreasonable. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion, including medical testimony indicating the decedent's knee had marked instability and climbing the ladder was foolish.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCausal ConnectionPermanent Partial DisabilityKnee InjuryUnreasonable ConductMedical TestimonyLadder FallPre-existing ConditionAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2007

Guzman v. 4030 Bronx Boulevard Associates L.L.C.

This appeal concerns the preclusion of expert testimony from a neuropsychologist, Dr. Elkhonon Goldberg, regarding the causation of infant plaintiff Tyrone Guzman's neurological deficits. The plaintiff has a history of multiple head traumas, and the lawsuit stems from alleged injuries sustained during a bathroom ceiling collapse. The trial court precluded Dr. Goldberg's testimony due to a lack of objective medical foundation to establish that the June 2001 incident was the proximate cause, subsequently dismissing the complaint. The appellate court agreed with the preclusion of testimony on causation but found an abuse of discretion in denying a continuance to allow plaintiffs to secure another medical expert. The matter was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Expert TestimonyNeuropsychologyTraumatic Brain InjuryCausationMotion in LimineContinuanceAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary StandardPersonal InjuryHead Trauma
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 232 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