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. OP 14-00510
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2014

EISENHAUER, JR.,, ROSCOE A. v. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON

Petitioner Roscoe A. Eisenhauer, Jr. initiated a proceeding under EDPL 207 to challenge the County of Jefferson's determination to condemn real property for expanding a public airport runway. The petitioner contended that the respondent failed to demonstrate an actual public use or benefit for the taking and that the taking was excessive. The court rejected these contentions, affirming that a public benefit existed and that the condemnor has broad discretion in determining the scope of the taking. The petitioner also argued that the respondent did not comply with EDPL 207 (4) and SEQRA, but the court found no error in the respondent's environmental review process. Consequently, the Appellate Division confirmed the respondent's determination and dismissed the petition.

Eminent DomainPublic UseCondemnationAirport ExpansionJudicial ReviewSEQRA ComplianceEnvironmental LawProperty RightsAppellate DivisionGovernmental Discretion
References
16
Case No. 535730
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph Birro Jr.

Claimant Joseph Birro Jr., a roofer, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that ruled apportionment did not apply to his workers' compensation award. Birro had two established work-related injury claims, one in 2006 and another in 2015, while working for Wolkow-Braker Roofing Corp. The 2006 claim, with State Insurance Fund as the carrier, resulted in an 18.75% schedule loss of use for his left leg. The 2015 claim, with New Hampshire Insurance Company as the carrier, led to Birro being classified as permanently partially disabled with a 59% loss of wage-earning capacity after surgeries. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge apportioned liability between the two claims, but the Board rescinded this. After further medical opinion, the WCLJ apportioned 80% to 2006 and 20% to 2015. The Board then modified this, finding apportionment inapplicable and placing full liability with New Hampshire for the 2015 claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board properly rejected the sole medical opinion on apportionment because its conclusions were not supported by the record, considering Birro continued working after the 2006 injury and did not have surgery until after the 2015 incident.

Workers' Compensation AppealApportionmentMedical Opinion RejectionSubstantial EvidencePermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseWork-Related InjuryOccupational HazardRooferAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06460
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2024

Jr. v. Shults Mgt. Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Floyd C. Bacon, Jr. sustained injuries after tripping on an electrician's pull string at a worksite, leading to a Labor Law and common-law negligence action. Defendant Ahlstrom-Schaeffer Electric Corporation, an electrical subcontractor, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the amended complaint and cross-claims, and for sanctions due to spoliation of evidence, but the Supreme Court denied the motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by granting the dismissal of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) causes of action against Ahlstrom, concluding it lacked supervisory authority. However, the court affirmed the denial of dismissal for common-law negligence and indemnification cross-claims, finding an issue of fact regarding whether Ahlstrom created the dangerous condition. The denial of sanctions for spoliation of evidence against Kessel Construction, Inc. and plaintiffs was also affirmed, as culpable intent was not established.

Construction AccidentTrip and FallLabor LawCommon Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentSpoliation of EvidenceSubcontractor LiabilityIndemnificationAppellate ReviewWorksites Safety
References
21
Case No. CA 11-00541
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2011

BYRD, JOSEPH v. RONEKER, JR., FREDERICK E.

The plaintiff, Joseph Byrd, sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while cutting a tree limb at the home of defendant Frederick E. Roneker, Jr. Byrd initiated an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Roneker's motion for summary judgment, but the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court determined that Roneker, as a homeowner who did not direct or control the plaintiff's work, was exempt from liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Furthermore, the court found no evidence that Roneker exercised supervisory control or had notice of any dangerous condition, thus dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims.

Homeowner ExemptionLabor LawPersonal InjuryLadder FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNew York LawNegligencePremises LiabilityTree Trimming
References
35
Case No. SRO 110075; SRO 110076 SRO 117282; SRO 124296 SRO 125019
Regular
Apr 09, 2008

GENARO LEMUS, JR. vs. GHILOTTI BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because a recent en banc decision in *Benson* significantly changed how permanent disability is apportioned among multiple industrial injuries. This new apportionment approach requires further development of the medical record to determine the causative sources of the applicant's overall 85% permanent disability. Consequently, the Board rescinded the prior decision and returned the case for further proceedings and a new decision by the WCJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGenaro Lemus Jr.Ghilotti Brothers Construction CompanyZurich Insurance CompanyState Compensation Insurance Fundindustrial injuryback injurycarpal tunnelpsychepermanent disability
References
4
Case No. ADJ9199320
Regular
Nov 05, 2015

VICENTE CEPEDA vs. JESUS RAMIREZ DBA JR COATINGS COMPANY; THE HARTFORD; and CLASSIC HOME IMPROVEMENT; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns whether Vicente Cepeda was an employee of JR Coatings (general employer) or Classic Home Improvement (CHI) (special employer) when he sustained an injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding that JR Coatings was the general employer, despite JR Coatings' argument that it lacked control over Cepeda's work. The Board determined Cepeda, lacking a contractor's license, was an employee, and JR Coatings' involvement in facilitating his work under its license made it liable as the general employer. The dissenting opinion argued that CHI was the true employer and JR Coatings was merely a pass-through to circumvent licensing requirements, with no actual employment relationship.

General employerSpecial employerDual employmentContractor's licenseRight of controlIndependent contractorLabor Code section 2750.5Insurance Code section 11663Subcontractor agreementEstoppel
References
7
Case No. 08-cv-3546 (ADS)(WDW)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2011

Smith v. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD DEPT. OF SANITATION

This civil rights case was brought by three African-American employees, Leo Smith, Jr., Benjamin Cannon, Jr., and John Christopher Smith, against the Town of Hempstead Department of Sanitation Sanitary District No. 2 and several individual defendants. Plaintiffs alleged a hostile work environment based on a noose incident and subsequent retaliation for filing EEOC complaints. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims against the Sanitary District, Robert Noble, Michael McDermott, and Nicholas Dionisio, citing triable issues of fact regarding the severity of the environment and the adequacy of the employer's remedial actions. However, summary judgment was granted for defendant John Beyer and the Board of Commissioners on these claims. Retaliation claims by John Smith and Benjamin Cannon were dismissed, but Leo Smith's retaliation claim against Michael McDermott and the Sanitary District was allowed to proceed. All claims of conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 were dismissed due to lack of evidence of agreement and the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRacial DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentCivil RightsTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983New York State Human Rights LawIntracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine
References
43
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01453 [159 AD3d 674]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2018

Grasso v. New York State Thruway Auth.

This case involves four consolidated personal injury claims filed by Jerry A. Grasso, Jr., John Sullivan, Jr., Cathy Marl, and Louis Centolanza against the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA). The claimants alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), and common-law negligence, stemming from injuries sustained during a highway construction project. The Court of Claims initially granted NYSTA's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims based on collateral estoppel. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal of claims under Labor Law § 241 (6) and for punitive damages, finding collateral estoppel applicable and punitive damages barred by sovereign immunity. However, the Appellate Division modified the order by denying the dismissal of claims alleging Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, concluding that collateral estoppel did not apply to NYSTA as a property owner and that NYSTA acted in a proprietary capacity, thus subject to tort liability.

Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Common-law NegligenceCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityGovernmental Function ImmunityProprietary FunctionPersonal InjuryConstruction Site Accident
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Plew-Jourdanais v. Adirondack Heating & Frost Insulators, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision granting death benefits to James Jourdanais Jr., the disabled son of the deceased James Jourdanais Sr. The decedent's wife, the claimant, appealed the finding that James Jr. was a dependent, eligible for benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 16 (2-a). The appellate court reviewed the factual question of dependency, emphasizing the need for evidence of adverse financial effect from the loss of the decedent's contributions. Finding no substantial evidence that James Jr. or his guardians were adversely affected by the loss of the decedent's contributions, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawDeath BenefitsDependencyDisabled ChildFinancial ContributionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewReversalRemittalLegal Guardianship
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This motion concerns plaintiffs' request to hold Harry VanArsdale, Jr., and Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, in contempt for failing to obey a subpoena. The underlying action involves accusations of a conspiracy to prevent the sale of electrical products. During proceedings before a Special Master, VanArsdale, Jr., as business manager of the Union, refused to produce a complete file of 'Allied Union News' issues despite a validly issued subpoena duces tecum. The court acknowledges the refusal was not contumacious but legally incorrect. Consequently, the court finds both VanArsdale, Jr., and Local Union No. 3 in contempt and orders the production of the requested documents, suspending punishment and costs contingent on their compliance.

Contempt of CourtSubpoena Duces TecumLabor UnionDiscoveryDocument ProductionSpecial MasterConspiracyInterstate CommerceRefusal to ComplyCourt Order
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 405 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