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. ADJ9860231
Regular
Apr 05, 2023

GARY COX vs. APPLIED PROCESS COOLING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a Petition for Removal in the case of *Gary Cox v. Applied Process Cooling; State Compensation Insurance Fund*. The dismissal occurred because the petitioner voluntarily withdrew their request for removal. Consequently, the Board issued an order formally dismissing the petition. This decision does not address the merits of the underlying workers' compensation claim.

Petition for RemovalDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdjudication NumberOpinion and OrderGary CoxApplied Process CoolingState Compensation Insurance FundStockton District Office
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cox v. County of Suffolk

Plaintiff Richard Cox sued Suffolk County, its Police Department, and several police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, alongside state law claims. Cox's claims arose from his arrest and prosecution for sodomy, where he contended he was an unwilling participant. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on Cox's state claims due to notice of claim and statute of limitations issues. For the Section 1983 claims, summary judgment was granted to the County and Police Department, and to the officers on false arrest and excessive force, but denied to the officers on malicious prosecution, finding their continued prosecution objectively unreasonable after exculpatory evidence emerged.

Section 1983Qualified ImmunityMalicious ProsecutionFalse ArrestExcessive ForceSummary JudgmentConstitutional RightsFourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment
References
45
Case No. CA 12-01229
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2013

STEIGER, GARY v. LPCIMINELLI, INC.

Plaintiff Gary Steiger commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained after tripping and falling while exiting a portable toilet at a construction site. The plaintiff's employer contracted with defendant Orchard Park CCRC, the landowner, for fiber optic installation. Defendant LPCiminelli, Inc. acted as the general contractor and was responsible for placing the portable toilets. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to dismiss certain Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against LPCiminelli, Inc. based on a lack of actual notice, and fully dismissing these claims against Orchard Park CCRC. Furthermore, the court dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, ruling that the accident site was not a 'passageway' under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1). One justice dissented regarding the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Site AccidentDangerous ConditionActual NoticeConstructive NoticeSupervisory ControlPortable Toilet PlacementTrip and Fall
References
40
Case No. CV-24-1330
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Gary Troiano

Claimant Gary Troiano appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board had reversed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's acceptance of Troiano's medical expert's report, ruling it should be precluded for non-adherence to Workers' Compensation Law § 137. The Board had also denied Troiano's application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division found that the Board erred in considering the employer's argument regarding the medical report's admissibility, as the employer failed to raise this objection in a timely manner. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's July 2024 decision and remitted the matter, deeming the appeal from the denial of reconsideration academic.

Medical expert reportTimelinessPreclusion of evidenceSchedule loss of useAdministrative reviewReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate DivisionRight wrist injuryIndependent Medical Examiner
References
9
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00659 [179 AD3d 1425]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of Cox v. Suburban Propane, LP

Claimant Barney A. Cox, a service manager, was diagnosed with noncompensable lung cancer in May 2014 and underwent surgery, returning to full-time work in January 2015. In June 2016, he sustained a work injury while lifting a propane tank, leading to established claims for injuries to his right shoulder, right chest, thoracic strain, and aggravation of complex regional pain syndrome. The employer and its carrier sought apportionment under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (7), arguing the award should be divided due to the preexisting noncompensable condition. However, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found apportionment inapplicable, a decision upheld by the Appellate Division, Third Department. The court affirmed, reasoning that apportionment is not applicable when a preexisting noncompensable condition did not disable the claimant from effectively performing job duties at the time of the work-related accident.

Workers' Compensation LawApportionmentPreexisting ConditionNoncompensable InjuryWage-earning CapacityComplex Regional Pain SyndromeThoracic StrainRight Shoulder InjuryLifting InjuryMedical Testimony
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2004

Spages v. Gary Null Associates, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order regarding a plaintiff's Labor Law claims against defendants Gary Null Associates, Inc. and Selma Weiser. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims, but the appellate court modified this. The appellate decision denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, citing comparative negligence as a valid defense and evidence of the plaintiff's own contribution to the injury. However, the grant of summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was affirmed, as comparative negligence is not a defense, and defendants failed their nondelegable duty to provide adequate scaffolding. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of Selma Weiser's cross-motion for common-law indemnification against Gary Null Associates, Inc., finding Null's liability to be purely statutory and not actively negligent.

Labor LawScaffolding SafetySummary JudgmentComparative NegligenceIndemnificationStatutory DutyWorkplace InjuryPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstruction Safety
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08300 [177 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2019

Warren v. E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Gary E. Warren et al., commenced a negligence action against E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc., and Verizon New York, Inc., seeking damages for injuries sustained by Gary E. Warren on a sidewalk outside his employer, Verizon. The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted Verizon's motion for summary judgment, concluding that workers' compensation benefits were the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law, and thus the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the summary judgment motion at that stage. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings after a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board.

NegligenceWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureRemittalScope of EmploymentSidewalk AccidentErie CountyFourth Department
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 1988

Arbusto v. Fordham University

Plaintiff Gary Arbusto was injured in an accident while working on a construction project for third-party defendant Andron on a building owned by defendant Fordham. Arbusto sought partial summary judgment against Fordham based on Labor Law § 240, alleging a failure to provide proper safety devices. The court granted Arbusto's motion, finding Fordham absolutely liable regardless of the general availability of safety devices. Fordham's motion for indemnification from Andron was denied, as the contract provision was deemed void under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 due to public policy concerns. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision.

Construction AccidentWorker InjuryLabor LawAbsolute LiabilitySafety DevicesIndemnification ClausePublic PolicySummary JudgmentOwner LiabilityContractor Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 1991

In re the Arbitration between Cox & Mitchell

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment confirming an arbitration award. Petitioner's decedent, Lyman S. Cox, Jr., sold a controlling interest in Air Kentucky Airlines to respondents, who agreed to indemnify him for corporate debt and employ him as a consultant. A dispute arose over alleged undisclosed tax liabilities, leading to a claim by decedent for unpaid salary and a counterclaim by respondents. The matter proceeded to arbitration, which awarded decedent full compensation and implicitly rejected the counterclaim. The Supreme Court confirmed this award. On appeal, respondents argued arbitrator misconduct for refusing an adjournment to join Air Kentucky as a necessary party, preventing presentation of evidence. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion regarding the adjournment and declining to review other unpreserved arguments.

Arbitration AwardConfirmation of AwardArbitrator MisconductNecessary PartiesAdjournmentAbuse of DiscretionEmployment ContractCorporate IndemnificationBankruptcyAppellate Procedure
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robles v. Cox & Co.

Carmen Robles ("Plaintiff") sued her former employer, Cox and Company, Inc. ("Defendant"), alleging age discrimination under ADEA, Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL; retaliation under Title VII; breach of contract; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Defendant filed a partial motion to dismiss several claims. The court, presided over by Judge Spatt, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the age discrimination claim under NYCHRL, the Title VII retaliation claim (for failure to state a claim), the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, and the breach of contract claim. The court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Title VII retaliation claim based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies but ultimately dismissed it for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff was granted twenty days to file an amended complaint.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIADEANYSHRLNYCHRLBreach of ContractIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMotion to Dismiss
References
64
Showing 1-10 of 169 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