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. 2022 NY Slip Op 00945 [202 AD3d 509]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

O'Flaherty v. Columbo

Plaintiff Brian O'Flaherty alleges severe, permanent injuries from an assault by employees of defendant Burgess at a construction site. Plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including TJM Construction, a subcontractor, which then initiated third-party actions against plaintiff's employer, Jackson Installation. Jackson Installation moved for summary judgment arguing the claims were barred by Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions as no "grave injury" was alleged. The motion court properly denied Jackson Installation's motion, finding it failed to prima facie establish that plaintiff's injuries were not "grave." The court also found TJM Construction's argument regarding incomplete discovery on plaintiff's medical condition sufficient to deny the motion as premature. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision.

Construction site injuryAssaultWorkers' Compensation LawGrave injurySummary judgmentCommon-law indemnificationContributionDiscoveryPremature motionAppellate review
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04251 [172 AD3d 1852]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2019

Matter of Aldea v. Damari Installations Corp.

Claimant Niegel Aldea, a scaffold builder, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his claim for benefits for a lower back injury allegedly sustained on September 13, 2016, while lifting planks at work. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, crediting Aldea's testimony. However, the Board reversed, finding insufficient evidence that a compensable work-related accident occurred and that timely notice was provided. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its credibility assessment and concluding that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. The court found no merit in Aldea's remaining contentions.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentNotice of InjuryCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceScaffold BuilderBack InjuryAppellate ReviewClaim DenialInjury Causation
References
9
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06781 [222 AD3d 1291]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2023

Matter of Reyes v. Nationwide Furniture Installers

Claimant Audis Reyes, a construction worker, established a workers' compensation claim in 2018 for causally-related chronic rhinitis, chronic sinusitis, asthma, and drug-induced diabetes following cleanup work after the World Trade Center attacks. He was initially classified with a permanent partial disability and a 55% wage-earning capacity. Reyes sought reclassification to a total industrial disability, which was denied by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently upheld by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board properly considered vocational factors and that its determination of no total industrial disability was supported by substantial evidence from vocational rehabilitation experts.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityTotal Industrial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityVocational FactorsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWorld Trade Center ClaimsChronic RhinitisAsthma
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

FLADD, JESSE v. INSTALLED BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC

Plaintiff commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action after sustaining injuries while installing spray foam insulation, allegedly struck by a garage door while on a wobbly ladder placed on an unstable surface. Defendants, Morrell Builders, Inc. and S&J Morrell, Inc., moved for summary judgment, which was largely denied except for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. Plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, which was partially granted by the Supreme Court. The appellate court modified the order, denying plaintiff's cross-motion in its entirety but affirming the denial of defendants' motion regarding Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The court found unresolved issues of fact concerning the accident's specifics and potential violations of Industrial Code provisions related to ladder placement.

Construction SafetyLadder AccidentPersonal InjurySummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsProximate CauseWorkplace Accident
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2015

In re Barrier Window Systems, Inc.

Barrier Window Systems, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found Barrier liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions for its installers. Barrier, which transitioned from installing to selling building products and arranging installations via subcontractors, argued it was not a contractor under the Fair Play Act and that its installers were independent contractors. The Board determined that Barrier continued to engage in construction by arranging installations and that the installers did not meet all three criteria of the Fair Play Act's ABC test for independent contractor status. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence, thereby upholding Barrier's liability.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorWorker MisclassificationConstruction Industry Fair Play ActLabor LawABC TestEmployment RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative AppealStatutory Presumption
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2013

Cambridge Owners Corp. v. New York City Department of Transportation

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment denying a petition that challenged the Department of Transportation's decision to install a City Bike Share station. The petitioner argued that the determination was arbitrary, capricious, and violated the City Environmental Quality Review Act. However, the motion court concluded that the respondent's decision was based on sufficient environmental review, adhered to siting guidelines, and possessed a rational basis, thus dismissing the proceeding. The judgment, entered on October 30, 2013, was unanimously affirmed.

City Bike ShareEnvironmental ReviewCPLR Article 78Arbitrary and CapriciousDepartment of TransportationNew York CountyLand UseUrban PlanningPublic ProjectsJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rought v. Price Chopper Operating Co.

This dissenting opinion argues against applying material hoisting regulations to the process of installing electrical wires by pulling them through conduit. The dissent asserts there is no evidence that the equipment used was lifting or suspending the wires. It highlights that the forklift was used to apply force to pull wires through a 90-degree angle, not to raise them. The opinion refers to the plaintiff's deposition, which clarified that the forklift applied force only after the wire was pushed to the turn, leading to tension that caused the wire to recoil when the rope broke. The dissent concludes that the equipment did not constitute "material hoisting equipment" under 12 NYCRR subpart 23-6, and therefore, the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action should have been dismissed. Stein, J., concurred.

material hoistingelectrical wiresforkliftconduit installationLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)summary judgmentdissenting opinionworkers protectionsafety regulations
References
6
Case No. ADJ3959447 (AHM 0138619) ADJ3200673 (AHM 0135036)
Regular
Sep 26, 2019

RICHARD DILLON vs. GENERAL INSTALLATION COMPANY, QBE SPECIALTY INSURANCE, ADMINISTERED BY SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal in the case of Richard Dillon v. General Installation Company. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will occur, and reconsideration is insufficient. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate these grounds, based on the WCJ's report on the merits of the arguments. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeExtraordinary RemedyAdverse DecisionCalifornia Workers' CompensationCase Number ADJ3959447
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MI Installers & Furniture Service, Inc. v. New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund

Plaintiff MI Installers and Furniture Service, Inc. (MI) sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the defendant Benefit Funds from initiating arbitration proceedings. The Benefit Funds, not signatories to the collective bargaining agreement (Agreement), claimed authority through incorporated documents or as third-party beneficiaries. MI disputed audit findings by Abrams, Herde & Merkel, LLP (AHM) which alleged delinquent contributions due to subcontracting. The Court analyzed the Agreement and Trust Agreements, finding no explicit right for the Benefit Funds, as third-party beneficiaries, to initiate arbitration independently. The Court granted MI's motion for a permanent injunction, preventing the Benefit Funds from pursuing arbitration against MI.

Labor LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee Benefit FundsERISALMRAThird-Party BeneficiaryPermanent InjunctionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureUnion Disputes
References
26
Case No. ADJ9016280
Regular
Jan 28, 2015

WALTER FLORES vs. R \u0026 D CUBICLE INSTALLATION, NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CNA CLAIMPLUS, INC.

In *Flores v. R & D Cubicle Installation*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The WCAB found that the petition was filed on December 3, 2014, which was more than 25 days after the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision was served on November 4, 2014. California law strictly enforces the jurisdictional deadline of 20 days for filing a petition for reconsideration, with a potential five-day extension for mailing. The WCAB reiterated that the timely filing of such a petition is a jurisdictional requirement, and untimely petitions cannot be granted.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalLabor Code section 5903Filing DeadlineJurisdictionalAppeals BoardWCJ's DecisionServiceMailing Extension
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 366 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