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. 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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Skilled Craftsmen of Texas, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case addresses whether the Texas Hazardous Employer Program, which designates private employers as hazardous based on injury rates, is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). Appellant Skilled Craftsmen argued that the state program implicitly regulates occupational health and safety issues already covered by federal standards, leading to duplicative regulation. The appellate court found that despite amendments to the Texas program, the designation of an employer as hazardous, with its public disclosure and potential business impacts, functions as a coercive measure intended to compel changes in workplace safety. This implicit regulation creates a conflict with the OSH Act's intent to avoid subjecting employers to dual regulatory schemes. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's ruling and rendered judgment that the Texas Hazardous Employer Program for private employers is preempted by federal law.

PreemptionOSH ActHazardous Employer ProgramWorkplace SafetyFederal LawState LawDuplicative RegulationTemporary StaffingSIC CodeJudicial Review
References
7
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

Wagner v. Wody

The plaintiff, Russell Wagner, a sanitation worker, was injured by a shard of glass while collecting garbage from the defendants' home. He sued Janice and Jerry Wody for personal injuries. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, ruling that the hazard was inherent to a sanitation worker's duties. Wagner appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that a small piece of glass constitutes ordinary garbage, and the associated hazard is inherent to the sanitation worker's job. A dissenting opinion, however, argued that the reasonableness of disposing of such glass and whether the hazard was "ordinary and obvious" should be a question for a jury, thereby raising a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentSanitation Worker InjuryInherent RiskHazardous WasteBroken GlassHomeowner LiabilityAppellate ReviewNegligenceDuty of Care
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saylor v. Lakeway Trucking, Inc.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employee, William H. Saylor, sought benefits for mental injuries allegedly arising from contact with hazardous material during his employment as a truck driver for Lakeway Trucking, Inc. On June 15, 1999, Saylor was splashed with hazardous liquid while investigating a leak, subsequently being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic depression. The trial court found his mental injuries compensable, concluding they arose out of and in the course of his employment, and determined he was 100% permanently disabled regarding his mental faculties. This court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the mental injury rationally connected to the hazardous material exposure and supported by sufficient medical and lay testimony, and that the 100% permanent disability finding was not against the preponderance of the evidence.

Workers' CompensationMental InjuryPost-traumatic Stress DisorderChronic DepressionHazardous Material ExposureOccupational DisabilityPermanent DisabilityVocational DisabilityCausationMedical Evidence
References
14
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. 03-04-00073-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2005

Skilled Craftsman of Texas, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Richard F. Reynolds, Executive Director

The case addresses whether the Texas Hazardous Employer Program, which identifies private employers with high injury rates, is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). Skilled Craftsmen of Texas, Inc., designated as hazardous, argued that the program implicitly regulates occupational health and safety standards already covered by federal law, leading to duplicative regulation. The district court initially upheld the state program, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The appellate court found that the Texas program's practical effect is to coerce employers into changing behavior, thus conflicting with Congress's intent to avoid subjecting workers and employers to duplicative regulation. Consequently, the court held that the Hazardous Employer Program, as it applies to private employers, is preempted by the OSH Act.

PreemptionOSH ActHazardous Employer ProgramWorkers' CompensationState LawFederal LawOccupational SafetyHealth StandardsDuplicative RegulationTexas Court of Appeals
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 679 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