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

Bauer v. Female Academy of the Sacred Heart

This case concerns Keith Bauer, a window cleaner, who was severely injured after falling from a third-story window while working for Environmental Service Systems at the Female Academy of the Sacred Heart. The accident occurred due to a safety hook becoming stuck on a square anchor, which violated Industrial Code standards. The primary legal issues were whether claims under Labor Law § 202 and Labor Law § 240 (1) could coexist, and if Labor Law § 202 imposed strict liability or comparative negligence. The Court of Appeals held that both Labor Law claims can be pursued simultaneously and determined that Labor Law § 202 is a comparative negligence statute, not a strict liability one. The court modified previous rulings by reinstating the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim for further proceedings, while affirming the comparative negligence approach for the Labor Law § 202 claim.

Window Cleaner InjuryLabor LawStrict LiabilityComparative NegligenceSafety AnchorsIndustrial Code ViolationConstruction SafetyThird-Party ActionStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart, Inc. v. Dowling

This nonpayment proceeding addresses respondents Robert and Jessica Dowling's motion to dismiss, alleging petitioner Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart, Inc. failed to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The court examined whether the rent demand and the petition constituted 'communications' under the FDCPA, ultimately concluding they did not violate the Act's provisions in this context. Furthermore, the court determined that even if an FDCPA violation occurred, it would not serve as a defense to the underlying eviction proceeding. The decision also rejected the argument that state law (RPAPL) is preempted by federal FDCPA, finding that the two can be reconciled. Consequently, the court denied the respondents' motion to dismiss in its entirety.

FDCPADebt CollectionNonpayment ProceedingRent DemandMotion to DismissStatutory PenaltiesPreemption DoctrineCreditor-Debtor RelationsSummary EvictionFormal Pleadings
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 1975

Claim of Alperin v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

The claimant, on March 12, 1971, experienced acute heart failure or insufficiency due to excessive work effort, aggravating a pre-existing heart defect caused by a damaged aortic valve. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that a subsequent operation to replace the defective aortic valve and its sequelae were causally related to this work activity. Appellants contested this finding, arguing a lack of substantial evidence. However, the record contained unequivocal medical testimony confirming that the specific work effort caused the condition to become symptomatic, necessitating the operation to alleviate symptoms. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding a clear causal link.

Heart ConditionWork-Related InjuryCausationAortic Valve ReplacementMedical TestimonyPre-existing ConditionWorkers' Compensation AppealSurgical NecessityAggravation of Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 1999

Bauer v. Female Academy of Sacred Heart

Plaintiff, an employee of ESS, sustained serious injuries after falling while cleaning windows of a building owned by the defendant. Plaintiff commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 202, and 240 (1). After an earlier appeal dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, the case proceeded to trial on the Labor Law § 202 claim. The Supreme Court instructed the jury that defendant and ESS were liable due to a breach of their statutory duty under Labor Law § 202, considering it an absolute liability statute and not allowing comparative fault. The jury returned a verdict of $3,351,933 in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant and ESS appealed, contending that Labor Law § 202, as amended in 1970, does not impose absolute liability but rather a violation of regulations under it constitutes some evidence of negligence, thus comparative negligence should apply. The appellate court agreed with the defendant and ESS, holding that a violation of Industrial Board regulations pursuant to the 1970 amendment to Labor Law § 202 is only some evidence of negligence, and therefore, comparative negligence should be considered by the jury.

Window Cleaning AccidentLabor LawAbsolute LiabilityComparative NegligenceStatutory DutyIndustrial Board of AppealsWorker SafetyJudgment AppealThird-Party ActionCommon-Law Negligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Heart Share Human Services

This case involves a petition filed by Heart Share Human Services of New York to terminate the parental rights of Brunilda E., the respondent mother, and Chiedus E., the putative father, to their child, Charle E., alleging permanent neglect and abandonment. Initially, the presumptive father was also a respondent, but the petition against him was withdrawn. The respondent mother conceded permanent neglect. The primary issues before the court were whether Chiedus E. qualified as a "consent father" and if the allegations of permanent neglect or abandonment against him were established. The court found Chiedus E. to be a credible witness, establishing his status as a "consent father" due to his prompt efforts to assert paternity and parental responsibility once aware of the possibility, despite the respondent mother's initial misrepresentations and the petitioning agency's lack of diligent efforts. Consequently, the court found that the petitioning agency failed to prove permanent neglect or abandonment against Chiedus E., leading to the dismissal of the petition against him, while proceedings for a dispositional hearing continued for the respondent mother.

Termination of Parental RightsPermanent NeglectAbandonmentPutative Father's RightsConsent FatherDiligent EffortsBiological PaternityChild AdoptionFamily LawChild Welfare
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 1992

Gribbon v. Missionary Sisters of Sacred Heart

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed an order that partially granted Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart's (MSSH) motion for summary judgment for common law indemnity against Anderson. MSSH, found liable under Labor Law § 240 for worker injuries, sought indemnification from Anderson due to alleged negligence in failing to provide safe working conditions. Despite an agreement not requiring Anderson to indemnify MSSH, Anderson had named MSSH as an additional insured. The court determined that MSSH's claim was a

Common Law IndemnitySummary JudgmentLabor LawInsurance CoverageThird-Party ClaimSubrogationAdditional InsuredNegligenceWorker InjuriesAppellate Decision
References
4
Case No. ADJ7170413
Regular
Apr 04, 2012

SARAH SERUNJOGI vs. FROM THE HEART HOME CARE, INC., TREVOR WHITE, FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant injured while providing home care services. The defendant, From The Heart Home Care, Inc. (FTHHC), sought to avoid employer liability, claiming it operated under a domestic employment agency exemption. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied FTHHC's reconsideration request. The Board found FTHHC failed to meet the exemption requirements, specifically because its contract obligated the applicant to pay referral fees, violating Civil Code section 1812.5095(b)(7). Therefore, FTHHC was correctly determined to be the applicant's employer at the time of injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryLeft Lower ExtremityAnkle InjuryUninsured EmployerEmployment Agency ExemptionCivil Code Section 1812.5095(b)Domestic Employment AgencyIndependent ContractorControl Test
References
0
Case No. AD J8835024 AD J8996815
Regular
Jun 14, 2016

TRACIE KEILLOR vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded a prior award, and found that the applicant, a deputy sheriff, did not sustain industrial injury from a stroke. While Labor Code section 3212.5 creates a presumption of industrial causation for heart trouble in peace officers, the applicant failed to establish, based on a qualified medical evaluator's opinions, that her stroke was caused by heart trouble or that she suffered from any heart trouble. The expert consistently found no evidence of heart trouble contributing to the stroke and opined that an intracranial thrombosis was the probable cause. Therefore, the presumption under section 3212.5 was not applicable as the applicant did not meet the threshold requirement of showing heart trouble.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy SheriffStrokeHeart PresumptionLabor Code Section 3212.5Occupational CausationMedical ProbabilityPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorCardiologistIn Situ Thrombosis
References
6
Case No. ADJ10138674
Regular
Jan 21, 2020

JUAN BARRAGAN vs. NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a correctional officer claiming industrial heart injury. The applicant benefits from a statutory presumption that his heart trouble arose from his employment. While the defense presented a medical opinion suggesting the applicant's heart attack was an exacerbation of a prior condition, the Appeals Board found this evidence insufficient to rebut the presumption. The Board is remanding the case for further medical development to determine if the applicant's work activities were a contributing cause to his current heart condition, placing the burden of proof on the defendant.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJuan BarraganNorth Kern State PrisonState Compensation Insurance FundADJ10138674Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryHeart Trouble PresumptionLabor Code section 3212.2
References
6
Case No. ADJ3526973 (SDO 0315558) ADJ2783481 (SDO 0355255)
Regular
Jan 21, 2011

THEMAS CARMODY vs. CITY OF SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a WCJ's decision finding no industrial injury to the applicant's heart and hypertension. The Board found that the Agreed Medical Evaluator's initial reports strongly supported industrial causation for hypertension and heart trouble, triggering the Labor Code section 3212.5 presumption. The Board held the AME's subsequent deposition testimony, which reversed his opinion without adequate explanation and rejected the legislative premise of stress-induced heart disease, was insufficient to rebut the presumption. Consequently, both the applicant's heart/hypertension claim and a previously decided claim for lung and hernia injuries were returned to the trial level for benefit determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPolice SergeantHeart ConditionHypertensionLabor Code Section 3212.5Presumption of CompensabilityAgreed Medical EvaluatorRebuttal of PresumptionIndustrial CausationDeposition Testimony
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 372 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