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. 2021 NY Slip Op 00744 [191 AD3d 1363]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2021

Lemiszko v. Mosovich 2014 Family Trust

Plaintiff Troy C. Lemiszko commenced an action seeking damages for injuries sustained after falling from a ladder on premises owned by Mosovich 2014 Family Trust. Defendant AAA Contracting, LLC appealed an order denying its pre-answer motion to dismiss Labor Law claims and the Trust's cross-claim for contractual indemnification. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order, rejecting AAA Contracting, LLC's collateral estoppel argument, finding that a prior workers' compensation determination did not preclude plaintiff's Labor Law recovery. The court also upheld the denial of dismissal for the contractual indemnification cross-claim due to insufficient documentary evidence.

Collateral EstoppelLabor Law ClaimsContractual IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation BoardLadder FallPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissGeneral Contractor LiabilityUninsured Employer
References
13
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 06152
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2014

DePaul v. NY Brush LLC

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a personal injury claim under Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and Labor Law § 241 (6). Plaintiff William DePaul, Jr. was injured when a wooden plank he was walking on broke. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, denying Ruttura & Sons Construction Co., Inc.'s motion to dismiss the contractual indemnification claim against it, and otherwise affirmed the order. The court found that defendants failed to demonstrate lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition and that the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e) (1) should be dismissed as the accident occurred in an open working area. Additionally, the court ruled that Industrial Code § 23-1.11 (a) was not applicable because the planks were not used in the construction of equipment or a temporary structure as required by the code. Issues of fact remain regarding Holt Construction Corp., Pepsi Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., NY Brush LLC, and Ruttura & Sons Construction Co., Inc.'s liability.

Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceLabor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment MotionConstructive NoticeDangerous ConditionContractual IndemnificationConstruction AccidentPersonal Injury
References
9
Case No. CV-23-2014
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Andrew DeWolf

Claimant, Andrew P. DeWolf, an emergency medical technician for Wayne County, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging binaural hearing loss due to prolonged workplace noise exposure. While the Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that the claimant failed to provide competent medical evidence to establish a causally-related occupational disease. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding the medical opinions from two otolaryngologists to be speculative due to insufficient data on noise levels, duration of exposure, and the claimant's recreational hunting history. The court also dismissed the claimant's arguments regarding jurisdiction and due process.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseHearing LossCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewEMTWorkplace Noise ExposureSpeculative Medical OpinionDue Process
References
13
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02513 [182 AD3d 954]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Matter of Colon (Pd 10276, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Nicanor Colon filed for unemployment insurance benefits after ceasing operation of his cleaning business, leading the Department of Labor to assess PD 10276, Inc., doing business as Jan-Pro Cleaning Systems of the Hudson Valley, for additional unemployment insurance contributions. An Administrative Law Judge initially ruled Colon an independent contractor, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed this decision, finding Colon and similarly situated individuals to be employees. PD 10276, Inc. appealed the Board's decision to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that there was substantial evidence of an employment relationship based on the indicia of control exercised by Jan-Pro Cleaning over its unit franchisees, similar to findings in prior cases like Matter of Baez. The court highlighted requirements like certification, provision of supplies, periodic inspections, and noncompetition clauses as supporting the Board's conclusion.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent Contractor StatusEmployment RelationshipFranchise AgreementAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceJan-Pro Cleaning SystemsDepartment of LaborUnit FranchiseesLabor Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2015

Schwarz v. Consolidated Edison, Inc.

Plaintiff, an ex-police officer with a 2002 perjury conviction related to the Abner Louima case, was hired by Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (ConEd) in November 2014 as a mechanic. He was terminated approximately two weeks later, with ConEd citing "potential disruption of business operations" and "damage to the Company’s reputation" due to his notoriety. Plaintiff sued ConEd, alleging unlawful employment discrimination based on his criminal conviction history under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law, incorporating Correction Law article 23-A. ConEd moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it terminated him due to business disruption and reputational risk stemming from his notoriety, not the conviction itself. The court granted ConEd's motion to dismiss, ruling that article 23-A protects against discrimination based on actual convictions, not reputation or notoriety, and that vacated convictions are not legally cognizable "convictions" under the law.

Employment DiscriminationCriminal Conviction HistoryPerjury ConvictionWrongful TerminationHuman Rights LawCorrection Law Article 23-AReputational HarmNotorietyVacated ConvictionsMotion to Dismiss
References
24
Case No. 23 NY3d 1021
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2014

The People v. Daniel Israel

In a 2014 appellate decision, the court affirmed a defendant's conviction for murder and attempted murder. The defendant, who shot into a crowd and at police, raised an extreme emotional disturbance defense, attributing his actions to PTSD from a prior stabbing. The prosecution rebutted this by presenting evidence of the defendant's violent incidents from 2002 and 2010. While the court found the 2002 incident evidence admissible, it deemed the 2010 incident evidence inadmissible but ultimately harmless error given the overwhelming proof of guilt and appropriate limiting instructions.

PTSD DefenseExtreme Emotional DisturbanceCriminal LiabilityUncharged CrimesPrior MisconductRebuttal EvidenceHarmless ErrorAppellate ReviewMurderAttempted Murder
References
14
Case No. CV-23-0250
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Janice Brown

Claimant Janice Brown appeals a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board which denied her request for an extreme hardship redetermination under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3). Brown was classified with a permanent partial disability in 2014 due to a work-related back injury from 2010. She sought reclassification to permanent total disability, arguing extreme financial hardship as her expenses exceeded her income by $300. The Board and the Appellate Division affirmed the denial, finding that she did not demonstrate "extreme hardship" as defined by statute and judicial precedent, noting her assets like an equity loan and a luxury vehicle lease, and unaccounted expenses.

Extreme hardshipPermanent partial disabilityPermanent total disabilityWage earning capacityIndemnity benefitsWorkers' compensation lawFinancial hardshipReclassificationStatutory interpretationAppellate review
References
10
Case No. CV-23-1738
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Aesoon So

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied review of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling disallowing claims for COVID-19 benefits for her deceased husband. The Board denied review because the claimant's counsel used an outdated version of form RB-89. The Appellate Division found Workers' Compensation Law § 23-a (1) inapplicable as the application was filed before its effective date. However, the court determined that the Board abused its discretion in denying review, given the minimal difference between the form versions and the lack of demonstrated prejudice. The decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationCOVID-19 ClaimAppellate ReviewProcedural ErrorForm RB-89Discretionary DenialStatutory InterpretationTimelinessDeceased EmployeeCausal Connection
References
8
Case No. CV-23-1587
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2025

Matter of Carpenter v. Albany Dialysis Ctr.

Victoria A. Carpenter's workers' compensation claim for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) was established following a work injury in 2014, leading to temporary partial disability benefits. Surveillance video later revealed inconsistencies between Carpenter's reported medical condition and her actual functional abilities. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found Carpenter violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by making material misrepresentations, imposing penalties including rescission of past benefits and permanent disqualification from future wage replacement. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Division, Third Department. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's findings regarding Carpenter's material misrepresentations to physicians and that the penalties were proportionate.

Fraudulent ClaimMaterial MisrepresentationDisability Benefits SuspensionSurveillance EvidencePermanent DisqualificationCRPSIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate Division ReviewJudiciary Law § 431Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a
References
9
Case No. CV-23-1587
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Victoria Carpenter

The claimant, Victoria A. Carpenter, a registered nurse, sustained a work-related injury in 2014, leading to a workers' compensation claim for complex regional pain syndrome. She was subsequently deemed temporarily partially disabled and received indemnity benefits. The employer and its carrier presented surveillance video that showed claimant's functional abilities contradicted her reported medical condition and disability. After review of medical examinations and testimonies, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge found claimant violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a due to material misrepresentation of her disability, imposing mandatory and discretionary penalties including permanent disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these decisions and denied reconsideration, which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court, Appellate Division.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aMisrepresentationFraudDisability BenefitsSurveillance VideoMedical ExaminationAffirmationPermanent DisqualificationIndemnity BenefitsComplex Regional Pain Syndrome
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,237 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