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. CV-24-0449
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Guy Spada

Claimant, Guy Spada, a heavy equipment operator, sought workers' compensation benefits for binaural hearing loss attributed to prolonged workplace noise exposure. The employer, Keeler Construction Company, and its carrier controverted the claim, disputing a causal relationship. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, which the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's finding of a causally-related hearing loss. The court determined that the medical opinions supporting causation lacked a rational basis due to inconsistent medical histories provided by the claimant, documented other sources of noise exposure, and audiogram results deemed inconsistent with noise-induced hearing loss by the carrier's consultant. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Occupational DiseaseBinaural Hearing LossCausationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewInconsistent HistoriesAudiogram ResultsNoise ExposureSchedule Loss of Use
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graziano v. Medford Plaza Associates, Ltd.

Guy Graziano, an employee of Coca-Cola Company, sustained personal injuries after falling in a parking lot and received workers' compensation benefits. His insurance carrier initiated Action No. 2, as assignee, against prior property owners and managing agents after notifying Graziano of the assignment of his claim if he failed to sue within 30 days. Separately, Guy and Maureen Graziano commenced Action No. 1 against prior owners and the current owner, 210 West 29th Street Corp. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Grazianos' action, ruling their claims were assigned to the carrier. On appeal, the order was modified: the dismissal of Action No. 1 was denied, and both actions were consolidated. The appellate court concluded that the carrier had waived its rights as an assignee against 210 West 29th Street Corp. by failing to pursue a claim against them.

Workers' Compensation LawAssignment of ClaimsPersonal InjuryProperty Owner LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWaiver of RightsConsolidation of ActionsAppellate ReviewInsurance SubrogationNew York Law
References
5
Case No. ADJ3859668
Regular
Sep 05, 2014

GUY CULVER vs. TERRY DAY, DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES/IHSS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Guy Culver's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely filed. The Board found the petition was filed more than 25 days after the original order, exceeding the statutory 20-day limit plus 5 days for mailing. Even if it had been timely, the Board would have denied it on the merits based on the administrative law judge's report. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013DismissalApplicantDefendantState Compensation Insurance Fund
References
0
Case No. ADJ7143823 ADJ6592090
Regular
Jul 11, 2013

ATRELL GUYE (Deceased) vs. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/STATE OF CALIFORNIA; Legally Uninsured, Adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding death benefits for Atrell Guye. The petitioner argued the WCAB erred by including car payments in the calculation of partial dependency benefits for dependent Maisha Douglas. The WCAB denied reconsideration, finding the dependent's testimony credible and unrebutted regarding the car payments. The WCAB also admonished defense counsel for referencing an inadmissible deposition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJdeath benefitspartial dependentMaisha DouglasBrenetta Sparksadministrative law judgedepositionCal. Code Regs.
References
0
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03856 [172 AD3d 1658]
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2019

Matter of Cozzi v. American Stock Exch.

The case involves Guy Cozzi, who appealed the Workers' Compensation Board's denial of his application to reopen his workers' compensation claim. Cozzi had previously filed a claim related to the World Trade Center cleanup operations, which was denied as untimely and not meeting the criteria for the exception under Workers' Compensation Law article 8-A. The Board affirmed the initial denial, and the Appellate Division also affirmed the denial of reconsideration. In 2017, Cozzi applied to reopen the claim, citing additional voluntary activities at the site. The Board denied the reopening application, citing a lack of jurisdiction under Workers' Compensation Law § 123, as the claim was disallowed after a trial on the merits and more than seven years had passed since the accident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationWorld Trade CenterCleanup OperationsClaim ReopeningJurisdictionTimelinessBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 123
References
11
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07468
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2018

People v. Ultimate Homes, Inc.

Guy Poulin, a drywall installer, was injured after falling through an unguarded stairwell opening at a residential construction site. He and his wife sued the general contractor, Ultimate Homes, Inc., among others, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court's order, which had denied Ultimate's motion to dismiss Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims and its cross-claim for indemnification, was appealed. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order, affirming the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs on Labor Law § 240(1) against Ultimate. The court granted Ultimate's motions to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against it, finding the accident arose from the method of work and Ultimate lacked supervisory control. Additionally, Ultimate's cross-claim for common-law indemnification against J.G. Fortin Drywall, Inc. was granted, and the lower court's sua sponte dismissal of Ultimate's cross-claims was reversed.

Personal injuryConstruction accidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Common-law negligenceIndemnificationContributionWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Summary judgmentAppellate Division
References
50
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06477 [175 AD3d 1253]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2019

Graziano v. Source Bldrs. & Consultants, LLC

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed a personal injury case where Guy Graziano was injured on a construction site. The court modified an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, concerning claims of common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Specifically, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment dismissing claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence against the defendants, finding triable issues of fact regarding dangerous conditions and the manner of work. However, it affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 241 (6) claims due to the inapplicability of cited Industrial Code provisions. The court also adjusted rulings on contractual indemnification claims between the defendants.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationScaffold LawElevation-Related RiskUnsafe Workplace
References
20
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03130 [238 AD3d 589]
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2025

Empanada Fresca LLC v. 1 BK St. Corp.

Empanada Fresca LLC (tenant) and Jose Rodriguez (guarantor) appealed a Supreme Court order regarding their lease dispute with 1 BK Street Corp. (landlord), which involved claims of fraud, breach of lease, and a "good guy" guaranty. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the tenant's claims for fraudulent inducement, rescission, promissory estoppel, and breach of implied covenant, deeming them duplicative or inapplicable. However, the court modified the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to the guarantor, Jose Rodriguez, thereby dismissing the landlord's counterclaim for breach of guaranty. This modification was based on the finding that the guarantor had substantially complied with the terms of the "good guy" guaranty, despite a three-day short notice to vacate, as the landlord suffered no prejudice. Additionally, the Appellate Division upheld the tenant's right to amend its complaint to seek consequential damages, citing public policy against parties avoiding liability for gross negligence.

Contract LawCommercial LeaseFraudulent InducementBreach of LeaseGood Guy GuarantySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRent AbatementPre-Existing ConditionsGas Service Interruption
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palanquet v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

Plaintiffs Guy and Mary Palanquet sued Weeks Marine, Inc. for injuries sustained by Guy Palanquet while working on the Robert Moses Causeway bridge reconstruction project, alleging a violation of New York Labor Law § 240(1). Weeks, the general contractor, impleaded C.B. Contracting Corp. (Palanquet's employer) and United States Fire Insurance Company (C.B.'s insurer), seeking defense and indemnification from U.S. Fire. U.S. Fire cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing it had no duty to defend Weeks. The court granted Palanquet's motion for summary judgment against Weeks, finding Weeks liable under Labor Law § 240(1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices. The court also granted U.S. Fire's cross-motion for summary judgment, determining that an 'Additional Exclusion' in the policy relieved U.S. Fire of its duty to defend or indemnify Weeks because Weeks' own negligence caused the injury. Weeks' motion for summary judgment against U.S. Fire was denied.

Summary judgmentNew York Labor Law § 240(1)Construction accidentLadder fallGeneral contractor liabilityInsurance coverageAdditional insuredWatercraft exclusionDisclaimer of coverageEstoppel
References
41
Case No. VNO 0507584, VNO 0508707
Regular
Apr 22, 2008

CAROLYN HOWARD vs. GOTTSCHALKS, INC., THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award, finding that neither the applicant's treating physician nor the defendant's QME provided substantial evidence regarding the extent of permanent disability. The Board returned the case to the trial level for further development of the record, specifically requiring more comprehensive medical opinions on permanent disability from both physicians. The Board also directed the WCJ to make an express finding regarding injury to the applicant's thoracic spine.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardThoracic spinePsyche injuryPermanent disabilityFurther medical treatmentPermanent disability indemnitySeth Hirsch Ph.D.Jay Cohen M.D.
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 36 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