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

Hull-Hazard, Inc. v. Roberts

Justice Levine dissents from the majority's decision, which annulled the respondent's determination that held Hull Corporation jointly liable with Hull-Hazard, Inc., for violations of Labor Law § 220. Levine argues for a liberal construction of Labor Law § 220, citing its remedial and protective purposes for workers' rights. He emphasizes the extensively interlocking relationship between Hull Corporation and Hull-Hazard, Inc., highlighting shared ownership, officers, managerial staff, and employee benefit plans. According to Levine, Hull Corporation, as a successor employer, should not be permitted to evade liability given its clear knowledge and use of Hull-Hazard's resources, drawing parallels to federal labor law on successor liability. He concludes that the imposition of joint liability was rational and should have been confirmed. The overall determination was modified by annulling the finding of a willful violation of Labor Law § 220 (2) and the joint liability of Hull Corporation, and then confirmed as modified.

Joint LiabilitySuccessor EmployerLabor Law ViolationsCorporate InterlockingDissenting OpinionConcurring OpinionRemedial LegislationUnfair Labor PracticesAnnulment of DeterminationWillful Violation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cariffe v. P/R Hoegh Cairn & M/V Cairn

Plaintiff Frank Cariffe, a longshoreman, was injured by inhaling hazardous Metanil Yellow while unloading drums from a container at Brooklyn Pier #9. The defendant, M/V Hoegh Cairn (CAIRN), was aware of the hazardous nature of the cargo but allegedly failed to label the container or provide a dangerous cargo manifest to Cariffe's employer, Universal Maritime Service Stevedoring Company (UMS). CAIRN moved for summary judgment, arguing it had no duty to warn because Metanil Yellow was not on the official Hazardous Materials Table at the time of the incident, only on an optional list. The court denied CAIRN's motion, asserting that a shipowner retains a common law duty to warn stevedores of known hidden dangers, even if not specifically mandated by federal regulations for all substances. The court determined that whether CAIRN breached its duty of reasonable care and whether UMS had adequate knowledge or could have discovered the hazard by reasonable care are questions for the trier of fact.

Longshoreman InjuryHazardous CargoDuty to WarnShipowner LiabilitySummary Judgment DenialMetanil YellowMaritime LawFederal RegulationsStevedore ResponsibilityHidden Danger
References
10
Case No. 126064
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2019

Leggio v. State of New York

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed an order granting summary judgment to the State of New York and dismissing a claim filed by inmate Deborah Leggio. Leggio sought damages for injuries sustained after tripping over a tree stump while working at Albion Correctional Facility. The court held that the State's duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace does not extend to hazards inherent in the work being performed, especially when such hazards are open and obvious. As Leggio was tasked with cleaning branches of a felled tree and was aware of the stump, it was deemed an inherent and obvious hazard, negating the State's duty to warn. Consequently, the court found no basis for liability against the State.

Inmate InjuryUnsafe WorkplaceSummary JudgmentOpen and Obvious HazardDuty to WarnCorrectional FacilityAppellate DivisionWorker SafetyPremises LiabilityTree Stump
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 1998

D'Egidio v. Frontier Insurance

Plaintiff Dominick D'Egidio was injured when he stepped into a hole in a raised floor while working at a construction site for defendant Woolard Construction Company, a general contractor for defendant Frontier Insurance Company. He and his wife filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims were properly dismissed because the plaintiff was aware of the hazard and the opening was not a "hazardous opening" under the relevant regulation. Furthermore, the court determined that the accident was not an elevation-related hazard contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (1), as the work site was the permanent floor and not an elevated surface requiring protective devices.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyElevation-Related HazardStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityFall Protection
References
24
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05084
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2025

Matter of Gunderson v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys.

The petitioner, an employee of the New York City Department of Sanitation, sought accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits after falling on a loose vinyl floor tile and injuring his left shoulder. The Medical Board and the Board of Trustees of the New York City Employees' Retirement System (NYCERS) denied his application, concluding the fall was not an 'accident' because he was aware of the floor's disrepair. The Supreme Court upheld this denial. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the judgment, finding insufficient record support that the petitioner was aware of the particular hazard—that the vinyl floor tiles might shift under his weight. The court concluded that there was no rational, nonspeculative basis for the determination that the event was not an accident, thereby deeming the Board of Trustees' decision arbitrary and capricious. The petition was granted, the determination annulled, and the matter remitted to the Board of Trustees for further proceedings.

Accidental Disability RetirementPublic Employee BenefitsSlip and FallPremises LiabilityAdministrative Law ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingNYCERSMedical BoardAppellate ReviewHazard Awareness
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coleman v. Crumb Rubber Manufacturers

The plaintiff, a welder, was injured by falling into an unprotected opening in the floor of a building owned by the defendant in Albany. The plaintiff commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Supreme Court dismissed claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and common-law negligence, denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and partially granting defendant's motion. This court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the injury not to be an elevation-related hazard. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, stating that the defendant failed to establish it did not create or have notice of the opening, and the plaintiff's awareness of the hazard only raises issues of comparative negligence, not absolving the defendant's duty to provide a safe workplace. The court also agreed that the defendant did not meet its burden regarding the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetyCommon-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentElevation-related HazardHazardous OpeningComparative NegligenceDuty of LandownerConstruction AccidentWelder Injury
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abax Services Corp. v. Local 78 Asbestos, Lead & Hazardous Waste Laborers

The defendants, Local 78 Asbestos, Lead and Hazardous Waste Laborers, AFL-CIO and Sal Speziale, appealed an order denying their motion to dismiss certain causes of action. The appellate court found that the plaintiff's claims were not preempted by Federal law, thus affirming the denial of dismissal on that ground. However, the court determined that the third cause of action, based on an alleged Donnelly Act violation, failed to properly identify co-conspirators. Consequently, this specific cause of action was dismissed, with leave for the plaintiff to replead. The order was modified and affirmed.

Tortious Interference with ContractDonnelly ActFederal PreemptionMotion to DismissLeave to RepleadAppellate ReviewLabor LawCivil ProcedurePleading RequirementsCo-Conspirators
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2001

Steiner v. Benroal Realty Associates, L.P.

The injured plaintiff, a sanitation worker, suffered a knee injury after stepping on a garbage bag while attempting to hook a dumpster. The plaintiffs initiated legal action against the property owner and site manager, alleging the existence of a dangerous and defective condition on the premises. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. This appellate court subsequently affirmed that decision, ruling that a defendant is not liable when a worker, aware of obvious employment hazards and possessing resources for safe conduct, performs the job incautiously.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySanitation WorkerObvious HazardAssumption of RiskAppellate DecisionNassau CountyKnee InjuryDangerous Condition
References
3
Case No. ADJ7700512
Regular
Jan 27, 2017

John E. Skaff vs. CITY OF STOCKTON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision denying a police officer's claim for prostate cancer. The applicant sought an adverse inference against the City of Stockton for failing to produce Hazard Awareness Recognition Program (HARP) forms allegedly detailing chemical exposures during methamphetamine lab investigations. The Board rescinded the prior decision, returning the case for further development of the record. This is to determine whether the City had a duty to retain and produce the HARP forms, and if the applicant exercised reasonable diligence in seeking them. The Board will then allow the WCJ to decide if an adverse inference is warranted and issue a new decision.

Hazard Awareness Recognition ProgramHARP formsadverse inferenceindustrial causationprostate cancerchemical exposuremethamphetamine labspolice officerQualified Medical ExaminerDr. Juan Cesar Larach
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Sica v. DiNapoli

Petitioner, a firefighter, sought accidental disability retirement benefits after being injured by inhaling toxic gases while responding to a medical emergency. The application was denied by the respondent, who argued the incident was not an 'accident' under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363, despite a Hearing Officer finding otherwise due to unforeseeable circumstances. The court annulled the respondent's determination, finding it lacked substantial evidence. The court distinguished this case from typical firefighter injury cases by highlighting the petitioner's lack of awareness of the chemical hazard in a non-fire emergency situation, concluding that a broad job description alone cannot negate a factual analysis of accident circumstances.

Accidental Disability RetirementFirefighter InjuryToxic Gas ExposureMedical Emergency ResponseUnforeseeable HazardCPLR Article 78 ProceedingRetirement and Social Security LawAnnulment of DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceJob Duties and Risk
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 713 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