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 00890
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2022

Sanchez v. BBL Constr. Servs., LLC

Plaintiff Jose W. Sanchez, an employee of D&J Concrete Corp., allegedly sustained injuries at a construction site in Rockland County after tripping over a protruding drain pipe while pouring concrete. He initiated a personal injury action against the property owners (CRH Realty IX, LLC, and Crystal Run Healthcare, LLP), the general contractor (BBL Construction Services, LLC), and the plumbing subcontractor (Joe Lombardo Plumbing & Heating of Rockland, Inc.), alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6). The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment submitted by the defendants and third-party defendant D&J, prompting an appeal. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court's order. It ruled that the defendants successfully demonstrated that the alleged dangerous condition was open and obvious, not inherently dangerous, and that they lacked authority to supervise the plaintiff's work, thereby dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. Additionally, the court found the Industrial Code provision (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (e) (2) cited for the Labor Law § 241(6) claim inapplicable, as the pipe was considered an integral and permanent part of the ongoing construction. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment dismissing all causes of action were granted.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentCommon Law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial CodeOpen and Obvious HazardInherently Dangerous ConditionSupervisory Authority
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plumbing Industry Board, Plumbing Local Union No. 1 v. L & L Masons, Inc.

Plaintiff Plumbing Industry Board (PIB) sued E.W. Howell and American Home Assurance Construction Co., Inc., seeking unpaid fringe benefit contributions under New York's Lien Law and as a third-party beneficiary to a contract. The defendants removed the action to federal court, asserting that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted PIB's state law claims and moved for summary judgment. PIB cross-moved for a remand to state court. The court determined that ERISA preempted both New York Lien Law § 5 and PIB's common law contract claims, ruling that the Lien Law created an obligation not permitted under ERISA and the contract claim created a new theory of recovery. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied PIB's motion to remand, and dismissed all claims.

ERISA pre-emptionNew York Lien LawFringe benefit contributionsSummary judgmentThird-party beneficiary contractCollective bargaining agreementEmployee benefit planSurety bondSubcontractor defaultFederal jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00606 [191 AD3d 1074]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2021

Matter of Pisarski v. Accurate Plumbing & Heating Co.

Claimant Michael Pisarski established a workers' compensation claim for occupational bilateral knee and shoulder injuries after retiring as a union plumber. The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately set the date of disablement as July 12, 2016, and a Worker's Compensation Law Judge ruled Norguard Insurance Company, which covered the employer during Pisarski's last employment, was the liable carrier, as no active policy was found on the disablement date. Norguard appealed, distinguishing its case from Matter of Cammarata, where the employer had ceased business. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board erred by not determining the business status of Accurate Plumbing and Heating Co. on the date of disablement. This determination is crucial to establish whether Accurate Plumbing was required to maintain an insurance policy or if the Uninsured Employers Fund should be responsible. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseDate of DisablementInsurance Carrier LiabilityUninsured Employers FundAppellate ReviewRemittalBusiness Status DeterminationPolicy CoverageKnee Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Interstate Cigar Co. v. Interstate Distribution, Inc. (In Re Interstate Cigar Co.)

This Memorandum Decision addresses the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment regarding damages in an adversary proceeding. The Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Interstate Cigar Co., Inc. sued Interstate Distribution, Inc. and Congress Financial Corporation, alleging violations of Article 6 of the Uniform Commercial Code (Bulk Sales Law). A New York State Appellate Court had already determined Congress's liability for violating the Bulk Sales Law. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Dorothy Eisenberg, was tasked with determining the appropriate damages. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, concluding that Congress is liable for the value of the inventory and equipment transferred, fixing damages at $14,976,662.00. The decision also awarded prejudgment interest to compensate the Plaintiff for Congress's wrongful retention of asset value, with the specific interest rate to be determined in a subsequent hearing.

Bankruptcy LawBulk Sales LawUniform Commercial Code Article 6Summary JudgmentDamages CalculationPrejudgment InterestFraudulent ConveyanceAsset TransferCreditor ProtectionTrustee Powers
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 1989

Hartley v. Concrete

The plaintiffs, including Donald Hartley, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, that denied their motion for partial summary judgment on liability against defendants Spartan Concrete, Paul Schmergel & Son, and Seymar Associates d/b/a Seagull Associates. Donald Hartley, an iron-worker, was injured when wood decking collapsed at a construction site. The plaintiffs argued a violation of Labor Law § 240. The Supreme Court denied the motion, stating that while a Labor Law violation was established, proximate cause was not demonstrated. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding no triable issues of fact regarding proximate cause and ruling that the collapse of the unsafe elevated structure itself constituted the proximate cause of the injury, imposing absolute liability on the defendants under Labor Law § 240. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability was granted.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor Law § 240Absolute LiabilityProximate CauseSummary JudgmentElevated Work SiteScaffolding LawAppellate ReviewWorker Safety
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Campbell v. Interstate Materials Corporation

The claimant, an operating manager for Interstate Materials Corporation, suffered injuries to his neck, back, and knees in August 2006 and a second lower back injury in April 2008. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially classified the claimant with a permanent total disability and struck the independent medical examiner's report. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding the IME report improperly precluded due to the examiner's hospitalization and reclassified the claimant with a permanent partial disability, equally apportioned between the two accidents. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in considering the IME report and that substantial evidence supported both the permanent partial disability classification and the equal apportionment of the disability.

Permanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardApportionment of DisabilityMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Cross-Examination RightsAbuse of DiscretionSubstantial EvidenceConflicting Medical Opinions
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brauch v. Interstate Brands Corp.

A former employee of Interstate Brands Corp. sued Interstate, his union (IAM), and its representative for $50,000 in lost pension benefits after his benefits were terminated under a new IAM pension plan. The termination occurred because Interstate ceased contributions less than four years after joining the plan. The plaintiff alleged misrepresentation by the union and its representative, and failure to inform by Interstate regarding the plan's termination provision and their intent to cease contributions. The court, however, found no legal duty for the employer to inform the employee about collective bargaining agreement terms. Consequently, the appellate court unanimously reversed the lower court's denial of Interstate's motion for summary judgment, granted the motion, and dismissed the complaint against Interstate.

Pension Benefits TerminationEmployer LiabilityUnion LiabilityCollective Bargaining Agreement InterpretationDuty to InformSummary Judgment AppealWrongful Termination of BenefitsEmployee RightsLabor DisputeAppellate Reversal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Surgicare Surgical v. National Interstate Insurance

This case addresses whether an insurer complies with New York's 11 NYCRR 68.6 regulation by reimbursing for out-of-state medical services according to the host state's (New Jersey's) no-fault fee schedule. Plaintiff Surgicare Surgical, assignee of an injured party, sought full payment for surgery performed in New Jersey, but defendant National Interstate Insurance Company paid a reduced amount based on New Jersey's fee schedule. The court affirmed the defendant's method, ruling that when medical services are rendered in another jurisdiction with its own fee schedule, the 'permissible' charge under that schedule constitutes the 'prevailing fee' under New York's regulation. The decision emphasized alignment with legislative intent to contain no-fault insurance costs and reduce judicial burden, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint and denying its cross-motion.

No-Fault BenefitsInsurance LawFee Schedule DisputeOut-of-State Medical ServicesNew York RegulationsNew Jersey Fee ScheduleStatutory InterpretationAutomobile AccidentReimbursement DisputeSummary Judgment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2000

Stein v. Beaver Concrete Breaking Co.

Stuart Stein appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to Beaver Concrete Breaking Co., Inc., dismissing his personal injury complaint. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, citing that a person can have both a general and special employer for Workers' Compensation Law purposes. Since Stein received workers' compensation benefits from his special employer, JAB Construction, Inc., and Beaver was determined to be his general employer, Beaver was shielded from the lawsuit under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 10, 11, and 29 [6].

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationTort LawNew York Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

Matter of Romero v. Capital Concrete

In this Workers' Compensation case, claimant Tunin Romero sustained injuries, leading to a claim for benefits. The employer, Capital Concrete, and its carrier, Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, failed to file a First Report of Injury or notice of controversy. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim and found the carrier liable. The carrier's application for review by the Workers' Compensation Board was denied for non-compliance with regulatory requirements (12 NYCRR 300.13 [b] [4] [v]). The Board also affirmed the WCLJ's denial of the carrier's request for further development of the record on the employer-employee relationship issue. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing the carrier's failure to object at the initial hearing and its unexplained absence.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureAdministrative ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationshipNotice of ControversyFailure to AppearAbuse of DiscretionJudicial ReviewClaim EstablishmentRegulatory Compliance
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 512 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