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

Dick v. John M. Gates Construction Corp.

Plaintiff Alan F. Dick was injured when a temporary deck collapsed at a construction site in July 1984 while he was working for John M. Gates Construction Corporation, the general contractor. He and his wife sued Gates Construction, Harvest Homes (materials manufacturer), and Armand Córtese (property owner) for damages. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against Gates Construction but granted summary judgment to Harvest Homes and Córtese. Gates Construction appealed the denial of its cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, holding that Gates Construction, as the general contractor, had a nondelegable duty under Labor Law § 240 (1) to provide proper protection and that issues of fact regarding inadequate bracing precluded summary judgment in its favor.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Deck CollapseSummary JudgmentGeneral ContractorNondelegable DutyAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorker SafetyConstruction Site Accident
References
4
Case No. ADJ11184146, ADJ11184147
Regular
Oct 24, 2019

ABEL PEREZ ROBLES vs. GATE GOURMET, INC.; ZURICH NORTH AMERICA CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ's August 8, 2019 decision in the case of Abel Perez Robles v. Gate Gourmet, Inc. The Board rescinded the prior decision and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings. This action is not a final determination on the merits, and parties retain their rights to seek reconsideration of any subsequent WCJ decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRescinded DecisionFurther ProceedingsWCJ ReportAdministrative Law JudgeDecision After ReconsiderationTrial LevelGate GourmetZurich North America
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1938

Sea Gate Ass'n v. Sea Gate Tenants Ass'n

The Sea Gate Association, a private membership corporation in New York, sought a temporary injunction to prevent tenants from picketing within its private community. The association argued its right to enact and enforce rules against picketing to maintain the private residential character of Sea Gate and protect property values. The defendants, who were tenants protesting an increase in beach charges, contended that their picketing was lawful and that the streets within Sea Gate should be considered public, thus asserting violations of their constitutional rights. The court, however, emphasized the distinction between public and private rights, reaffirming the association's established authority to impose reasonable restrictions on its private property. Given that no labor dispute was involved and based on prior rulings confirming Sea Gate's private status, the court concluded that the rule against picketing was reasonable and had been breached. Consequently, the temporary injunction was granted against the defendants.

Private Property RightsTemporary InjunctionPicketing RegulationConstitutional RightsPrivate CommunityMembership CorporationProperty RegulationsTenant DisputeNew York LawBeach Access Fees
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gates Construction Corp. v. Koschak

Walter Koschak, Jr. sustained injuries while working for Gates Construction Corporation. He and his wife, Carol Koschak, initiated a Jones Act personal injury lawsuit in New York state court. Gates Construction subsequently filed a federal declaratory judgment action to determine Walter Koschak's seaman status and then removed the state court Jones Act suit to federal court. The plaintiffs moved to remand the Jones Act suit and dismiss the declaratory judgment action. The District Court granted both motions, ruling that the removal of the Jones Act suit was untimely and declining jurisdiction over the anticipatory declaratory judgment action to prevent forum shopping and upholding the Jones Act's anti-removal provisions.

Jones ActSeaman StatusRemoval JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentTimelinessFederal Court DiscretionState Court ActionPersonal InjuryLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActForum Shopping
References
12
Case No. ADJ975351 (SFO0511587)
Regular
Jul 11, 2011

BURNADINE GASKIN vs. K & L GATES, LLP., SENTRY SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Burnadine Gaskin's Petition for Reconsideration and dismissed her Petition for Removal. Gaskin sought reconsideration of supplemental findings that she did not sustain a neck injury in addition to her upper extremities, nor require further medical treatment due to her employment with K & L Gates, LLP. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found no causal connection between Gaskin's employment at K & L Gates and any ongoing disability or need for medical treatment, citing expert medical opinion. The dismissal of the removal petition was due to the final decision being addressed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalSupplemental Findings of Factinjury to upper extremitieslegal secretarycumulative injurySentry Select Insurance CompanyTremblath doctrineColonial Ins. Co.
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Gates

This case involves Gerald and Geraldine Gates (Debtors) motioning to disallow Algie Raines' secured claim of $24,554.84 in bankruptcy court. The core issue is which of two inconsistent judgments—a New York state court judgment in favor of Raines or a later Pennsylvania state court default judgment in favor of the Debtors—has preclusive effect. The New York court dismissed Debtors' fraud allegations and upheld Raines' mortgage, while the Pennsylvania court, via default, found fraud, nullified the mortgage, and awarded damages to the Debtors. Applying the "last-in-time" rule, the bankruptcy court determined that the Pennsylvania default judgment, which Raines unsuccessfully appealed, controls. The court also rejected Raines' collateral attack based on lack of jurisdiction and fraud, as these issues were litigated or could have been litigated in Pennsylvania. Therefore, the Debtors' motion to disallow Raines' secured claim was granted.

BankruptcyDebtors' MotionClaim DisallowanceSecured DebtInter-jurisdictional ConflictFull Faith and Credit ClauseRes JudicataLast-in-Time RuleDefault JudgmentCollateral Attack
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 1983

MATTER OF GATES v. McBRIDE TRANSP., INC.

The Workers' Compensation Board found that the claimant's heart attack was causally related to his employment, a finding supported by substantial evidence. This evidence included the claimant's testimony regarding irritation from a phone call that required him to redo a morning's work, and the proximity of the heart attack to this stressful event. Additionally, medical testimony corroborated the causal relationship. The Appellate Division erred by reversing the Board's determination despite the presence of substantial supporting evidence. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order and reinstated the Workers' Compensation Board's original determination.

Workers' CompensationHeart AttackCausal RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewEmployment StressMedical TestimonyReversalNew York Court of Appeals
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sala v. Gates Construction Corp.

Plaintiff Richard Sala, a dockbuilder, was injured while working for Defendant Gates Construction Corp. on a crane barge in Brooklyn, New York. Sala brought this action under the Jones Act and the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), alleging negligence after a timber struck him, causing a fractured skull and jaw and ongoing health issues. Defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the Jones Act claim, concluding that the barges were not 'vessels in navigation' and Sala was not a 'seaman.' However, the court denied summary judgment on the LHWCA claim, stating that the barges could be considered vessels under the LHWCA's broader definition, leaving a factual issue for trial.

Jones ActLHWCASeaman StatusVessel in NavigationSummary JudgmentDockbuilder InjuryMaritime LawCrane BargeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56Negligence
References
16
Case No. ADJ8041070
Regular
Aug 20, 2014

JUANA MONROY vs. GATE GOURMET INC., TRAVELERS, XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board denied Travelers' Petition for Removal, which sought to reverse an order taking the case off calendar. The Board found that placing the matter off calendar would not cause substantial prejudice to Travelers. However, due to a genuine issue regarding injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE), the Board ordered bifurcation of that issue. The case will be reset for a priority conference, and if the AOE/COE issue is not resolved, it will proceed to trial on that specific matter.

Petition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderAOE-COEBifurcationAgreed Medical EvaluatorWCJ Report and RecommendationSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmPriority Conference CalendarPretrial Conference Statement
References
0
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07356
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2025

Matter of Pinson v. North Gate Health Care Facility

Patricia Pinson, a nurse, injured her lower back at work in 2019, leading to a workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) initially classified her with a permanent partial disability and 75% loss of wage-earning capacity but denied wage loss benefits due to her not being attached to the labor market. The WCB later modified this decision to include that she was capable of sedentary work. Pinson appealed the denial of her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed the WCB's denial, stating that the review was limited to whether the denial was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, and Pinson failed to demonstrate new evidence, a material change in condition, or that the Board improperly failed to consider issues.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityLabor Market AttachmentReconsiderationFull Board ReviewAppellate ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousAbuse of DiscretionJudicial Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 86 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