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

Gannon v. All Car Movers, Ltd.

The plaintiff suffered personal injuries after slipping on an ice patch on the steps of a building. The building was owned by Abbey Island Park, Inc., leased to Apex Transportation Corp., and subleased to All Car Movers, Ltd. Abbey Island Park, Inc. appealed an interlocutory judgment finding it liable, arguing insufficient evidence of its control over the premises or notice of the ice. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the jury could rationally find the lessor retained control due to a lack of documentary evidence transferring maintenance duties and its own continued grass mowing. Furthermore, the court found the jury could reasonably infer the lessor had notice of the ice patch, which likely formed from a snowstorm six days prior to the accident, despite minor precipitation the day before.

Premises LiabilitySlip and FallIce AccumulationLessor ControlConstructive NoticeJury Verdict SufficiencyAppellate AffirmationPersonal InjuryReal Property LawNassau County
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Garti v. Salvation Army

The claimant alleged a work-related injury while moving a couch. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found prima facie medical evidence, allowing the case to proceed. The employer and its carrier appealed this interlocutory finding to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which refused review and imposed a penalty, citing 12 NYCRR 300.38 (g)(3)(i). The Board determined that findings of prima facie medical evidence are interlocutory and not reviewable at that stage. The employer then appealed to this Court, challenging the regulation and the penalty. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, concurring that the WCLJ's finding of prima facie medical evidence is an interlocutory decision and not immediately appealable, affirming the Board's interpretation of the regulation and deeming the challenge to the penalty premature.

Workers' Compensation LawPrima Facie Medical EvidenceInterlocutory DecisionAppeal DismissalRegulatory ComplianceNew York Workers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Law JudgeCausal RelationshipPenalty for Delay
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Roller v. Lehigh Portland Cement Co.

The court granted a motion to dismiss an appeal, finding the board's decision to deny applications to reopen three cases and restore two active cases to the referee calendar to be interlocutory and thus not appealable under Workers’ Compensation Law, § 23. The court also noted that the board's decision did not preclude the parties from litigating the effect of previous injuries on the claimant’s overall disability in the active cases. Furthermore, the decision appealed from can be reviewed later on an appeal from a final decision of the board.

appeal dismissalinterlocutory decisionworkers' compensation lawreopening casesreferee calendarappealabilityfinal decision reviewclaimant disabilityprocedural lawjudicial panel decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of I-Conscious R. (George S.)

This case involves an appeal concerning a Family Court order that determined a respondent father abused and neglected his daughter and derivatively abused and neglected his son. The appellate court affirmed the fact-finding order, concluding that the petitioner presented a preponderance of evidence, including medical findings of genital herpes in the child, indicative of sexual abuse. The court upheld the neglect finding due to the father's failure to secure timely medical care for his daughter's severe symptoms. Additionally, the respondent's arguments regarding the suggestiveness of interviews, the testimony of his expert witness, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were all rejected by the court. An appeal against a separate order of protection was dismissed due to abandonment.

Child AbuseChild NeglectSexual AbuseGenital HerpesMedical EvidenceFamily Court ProceedingsSufficiency of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2004

Gallagher v. Andron Construction Corp.

The plaintiff, Bernard Gallagher, sustained injuries after falling from an outdoor stairway at a construction site and subsequently initiated legal action against Andron Construction Corp., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially denied the defendant's motion to dismiss this specific cause of action, leading to a jury verdict finding the defendant liable. On appeal, the interlocutory judgment was reversed, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action was granted. The appellate court determined that a fall from a permanent stairway does not typically fall under the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1) as it is not considered an elevation-related hazard. The case was then remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new trial addressing the remaining causes of action.

Personal injuryConstruction accidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Stairway fallElevation hazardCPLR 4401Motion to dismissJudgment as a matter of lawAppellate reviewInterlocutory judgment
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2015

Matter of Ruth Joanna O.O. (Melissa O.)

Justice Gesmer dissents from the affirmation of a Family Court order finding Melissa O. neglected her child. The dissent argues that the Family Court lacked a basis for its neglect finding, as there was no evidence that the mother's conduct impaired or threatened her child's condition. Furthermore, it asserts that the findings regarding the mother's failure to take medication or engage in mental health services were unsupported by admissible evidence. Gesmer, J. emphasizes that proof of mental illness alone is insufficient for a neglect finding without a causal link to actual or potential harm to the child. The dissent concludes that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the mother's mental illness resulted in a failure to provide a minimum degree of care or that the child was harmed or at imminent risk of harm.

Child Protective ProceedingNeglect FindingParental Mental IllnessSufficiency of EvidenceImminent Risk of HarmMinimum Degree of CareFamily Court ActDissenting OpinionAdmissibility of EvidenceCausal Connection
References
15
Case No. ADJ10344600
Regular
Aug 02, 2018

LUCIA GRADINARIU vs. FUTUREWEI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., BERKLEY NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration and removal. The WCAB found that the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the December 28, 2016 Findings and Orders was procedurally defective as it was unverified and lacked proper proof of service. The Board also determined that the applicant's petition challenging the subsequent Order Taking Off Calendar was an attempt to seek reconsideration of an interlocutory order, which is improper. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from the interlocutory order.

AOE/COEPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Taking Off CalendarFindings and OrdersSubstantial Medical EvidenceUnverified PetitionProof of ServiceCumulative InjuryDate of Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2009

In re Jessica L.

This case concerns an appeal by a father against a finding of neglect regarding his two children. The children resided with their mother, who had a history of drug use. The father, suspecting the mother was currently using drugs, anonymously contacted the Administration for Children's Services (ACS). Although the mother subsequently tested positive for cocaine, the appellate court reversed the Family Court's neglect finding against the father. The court determined that the father's actions, including his proactive call to ACS, met the minimum degree of care required and did not constitute neglect, thereby vacating the finding and dismissing the petition against him.

Family LawChild NeglectParental RightsAppellate ReviewFamily CourtSubstance AbuseDrug TestingACS InterventionMinimum Degree of CareReversal of Finding
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John and Vincent Arduini Inc. v. Nynex

This case involves a motion for reconsideration and certification for interlocutory appeal filed by Defendants NYNEX against Plaintiff John and Vincent Arduini, Inc. d/b/a Heritage Cleaning Co. Heritage alleged discriminatory retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, defamation, and prima facie tort, stemming from alleged racial bias by a NYNEX property manager. The Court granted summary judgment to Defendants on the defamation and prima facie tort claims due to insufficient admissible evidence and failure to prove special damages, respectively. It also partially granted summary judgment on the § 1981 claim concerning the early termination of one contract, finding Plaintiff failed to show pretext. However, the Court denied reconsideration of its prior ruling on Plaintiff's standing under § 1981 and on other § 1981 claims related to contract bidding, finding material issues of fact. Crucially, the Court granted Defendants' motion to certify the question of Plaintiff's standing under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit, staying all further proceedings.

DiscriminationRetaliationSection 1981StandingInterlocutory AppealReconsiderationDefamationPrima Facie TortSummary JudgmentCorporate Standing
References
44
Case No. ADJ8759846
Regular
Jun 05, 2025

Manuel Agurto vs. Peterberg Construction, Inc.; Praetorian Insurance Work Comp Program

Applicant, Manuel Agurto, seeks reconsideration of the February 4, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) where the WCJ found injury to his psyche and determined his average weekly wage. The WCJ's Opinion on Decision (OOD) also included findings of injury to other body parts and awarded future medical for some. Applicant challenged various interlocutory issues. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration to rescind the F&O and substitute it with a Findings, Award, and Order (FA&O) to reflect all of the WCJ's findings, awards, and orders, including additional body parts injured and an award of future medical, while deferring other issues for further development of the record. The Board admonished applicant's attorneys for frivolous conduct.

AOE/COEpsyche injuryAMEPQMEoccupational group 480Labor Code 4453(c)(4)petition for reconsiderationfinal orderinterlocutory issuesremoval standard
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 15,956 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