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. ADJ1895769 (OAK 0305869)
Regular
Aug 24, 2016

CATHERINE BURNHAM vs. MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal, finding jurisdiction over a dispute regarding the cost of specialized prosthetic braces (IDEOs), which a prior judge erroneously sent for Independent Bill Review. The WCAB determined that Labor Code section 4603.6 did not apply as there was no billable service in the conventional sense. Following a Commissioners' Conference, the parties entered stipulations for the provision of the braces, payment of fees according to the CA fee schedule, and resolution of associated penalties. The WCAB approved these stipulations, resolving the parties' dispute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalOrder Taking Off CalendarJurisdictionLabor Code 4603.6Independent Bill ReviewIntrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal OrthosisIDEO bracesMedical Fee ScheduleLabor Code 4603.2
References
3
Case No. ADJ649373
Regular
Aug 01, 2014

TRENA GIBNEY vs. GLENDALE ADVENTIST HOSPITAL, ADVENTIST HEALTH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the judge's findings. The judge ruled that the applicant was entitled to referrals to a pulmonologist, nephrologist, and hematologist, as well as an AFO brace. The Board rejected the defendant's supplemental pleading and admonished their counsel for misstating facts, noting potential future sanctions. The applicant sustained a catastrophic injury as a registered nurse in 2008 and has undergone multiple surgeries, with the current dispute revolving around the medical necessity of further consultations and an AFO brace.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportsupplemental pleadingmisstating factssanctionsFindings and Awardpulmonologistnephrologisthematologist
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvarez v. Colgate Scaffolding & Equipment Corp.

The case involves a plaintiff who fell from a sidewalk bridge's cross-brace, raising questions about its proper installation by the defendant, Colgate. While Colgate's principal testified to proper installation, his absence during the actual installation and the lack of installer evidence created factual disputes. The court also considered Colgate's arguments of sole proximate cause and the plaintiff's assumption of risk. The decision implies that these defenses do not absolve Colgate of potential liability, especially given the foreseeable use of the cross-braces, thereby precluding summary dismissal.

Sidewalk BridgeCross-braceSummary DismissalNegligenceProximate CauseAssumption of RiskQuestions of FactConstruction AccidentInstallation DefectsThird-party Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. Pavarini Construction

Plaintiff, a carpenter, sustained injuries when a form wall fell on his hand during the construction of a new building. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. This court reversed that decision, holding that Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-2.2 (a), which mandates proper bracing for forms, applies to forms even during their construction phase, not just when they are completed. The court found that the back form wall was not properly braced, leading to the plaintiff's injury, and distinguished the defendants' cited precedents.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code 23-2.2(a)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorker SafetyConcrete FormworkBracing RequirementsStatutory InterpretationWorkplace Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gorleski v. Town of Halfmoon

A 14-year-old claimant was injured while bracing heavy wooden panels for the Town of Halfmoon's Parks and Recreation Department. She sought double compensation under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14-a, arguing her work constituted prohibited "construction work" for minors. The Workers' Compensation Board denied her claim, finding her activity did not fall under the definition of construction work. This appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that moving and bracing panels without tools was not "construction work" as defined by relevant Labor Law sections and regulations, thus upholding the denial of double compensation.

Minor employment injuryDouble compensationWorkers' Compensation Law § 14-aLabor Law § 133 (2) (i)Construction work definitionProhibited employmentAppellate court decisionInjury claimYouth labor lawStatutory interpretation
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06696 [188 AD3d 515]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2020

Albuquerque v. City of New York

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order granting plaintiffs partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The case involved a construction worker injured by a bracing timber thrown into a trench during water main installation by the defendant's contractor. Defendants contended the timber was deliberately lowered and not a load requiring securing, and that the worker was not in a drop zone. However, the court found that the bracing timber constituted a load requiring securing, rejecting the defendants' arguments. This decision highlights the strict liability provisions of Labor Law § 240 (1) regarding securing loads.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetyConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFalling ObjectsBracing TimberLiabilityNew York LawRespondents
References
6
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06773
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2025

Sullivan v. Flynn

Loren S. Sullivan, an appellant, was injured after tripping on a wooden construction brace while taking measurements for custom kitchen cabinetry in a new home, leading him to sue the contractors, Gerald R. Flynn et al., for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 200. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling they had no duty to warn and that the readily observable brace was not a substantial factor in the injury. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, asserting that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the worksite was maintained in a reasonably safe condition, thereby leaving a question of fact for trial. The court emphasized that the open and obvious nature of a dangerous condition only negates the duty to warn, not the broader duty to maintain a safe workplace. Consequently, the case was remanded for further proceedings to determine if the defendants' worksite was indeed safe.

Safe Place to WorkConstruction Site SafetyTripping HazardLabor Law § 200Summary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceDuty to WarnDangerous ConditionQuestion of FactAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheridan v. Beaver Tower, Inc.

Plaintiff James Sheridan was injured when a plywood panel separated from its bracing board, striking him in the face while he was dismantling a sidewalk bridge. He sued the building owners, Beaver Tower, Inc. and Lawrence-Picasso, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200(1), 240(1), and 241(6). The owners then sought indemnification from the plaintiff's employer, York Scaffold Equipment Corp. The court affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, finding the bracing board an inadequate safety device against gravity-related hazards. However, it granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 200(1) claim, as the owners did not exercise supervisory control over the work. The court also granted the owners' motion for summary judgment on their indemnification claim against York, establishing that the owners' liability under § 240(1) was purely vicarious.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200(1)Workplace AccidentScaffold DismantlingFalling MaterialsOwner LiabilityContractor IndemnificationProximate CauseGravity-Related HazardSafe Work Site
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelly v. Metropolitan Insurance & Annuity Co.

An infant plaintiff suffered severe penile injuries after striking a sidewalk shed's wooden base, metal pole, and a rusty cross brace with an uncapped bolt while riding a bicycle. The trial court dismissed the complaint against Rose Associates and a jury found for the remaining three defendants. The appellate court reversed and ordered a new trial for the three defendants, citing judicial errors including inappropriate interference with the plaintiffs' expert witness and improper introduction of evidence regarding parental negligence. The dismissal against Rose Associates was affirmed.

Sidewalk Shed AccidentInfant InjuryJudicial MisconductExpert Witness TestimonyJury PrejudiceBuilding Code ComplianceCommon-Law NegligenceParental SupervisionAppellate ReversalNew Trial
References
5
Case No. ADJ7590229
Regular
Oct 30, 2014

KAREN LYNN MINES vs. 3D INSTRUMENTS OF ANAHEIM, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

In this cumulative trauma injury case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct the date of injury. The Board found the arbitrator erred by relying on non-medical evidence like knee brace use and the need for surgery to establish a date of injury. Citing Labor Code section 5412, the Board clarified that disability requires medical evidence, not just treatment or modified work. Consequently, the Board rescinded the prior order and established the date of injury as July 9, 2010, the applicant's first date of temporary disability.

Cumulative traumaDate of injuryLabor Code 5412DisabilityPermanent disabilityTemporary disabilityKnee replacementKnee braceCaneSubstantial evidence
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 31 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