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. 2019 NY Slip Op 01046 [169 AD3d 747]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2019

Barrios v. 19-19 24th Ave. Co., LLC

The plaintiff, Sergio Barrios, sustained personal injuries when a differential block and chain fell on his head while preparing a hoisting apparatus at the defendants' premises. He sued 19-19 24th Avenue Company, LLC, et al., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied both parties' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order. It granted the plaintiff summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the repair work fell under its purview. It also granted the defendants summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, ruling that the plaintiff's work did not constitute construction, demolition, or excavation.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffolding LawGravity HazardSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRepair WorkHoisting ApparatusWorkplace SafetyStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 1977

Claim of Bonanno v. Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision, filed on April 22, 1977. The Board had previously awarded compensation to the claimant for a partial disability resulting from accidental injuries that occurred on August 19, 1969, specifically covering the period from January 19, 1970, to December 31, 1972. The Board's determination was based on substantial medical testimony, which supported a finding of a continuing causally related partial disability subsequent to January 19, 1970, and affirmed the Referee's award for reduced earnings. The appellate court found substantial evidence to sustain the Board's determination, and consequently, the decision was affirmed, with costs awarded to the Workers’ Compensation Board against the employer and its insurance carrier.

Partial DisabilityAccidental InjuriesReduced EarningWorkers' Compensation AwardBoard Decision AppealMedical TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAffirmed DecisionEmployer LiabilityInsurance Carrier Liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 1978

Mayone v. Colonial Sand & Stone

The appellant's motion was denied, and the appeal was dismissed because it was deemed abandoned on January 19, 1979, almost eight months before the motion was filed. The court found the claimant's excuse of losing contact with their attorneys due to personal reasons inadequate, especially considering the uncomplicated nature of the appeal. The decision of the board was dated January 19, 1978.

AppealMotion DeniedAbandoned AppealLack of CommunicationAttorney-Client RelationshipTimelinessProcedural DismissalNew York Law
References
0
Case No. ADJ7965556; ADJ7965560
Regular
Sep 14, 2022

WYATT MITCHAM vs. APPSHOSTING, INC., BYUNG SAM YUN, ASHOK BALASUBRAMANIAN, LARRY WENSHAN ZHAO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's orders were interlocutory and not final decisions. The WCAB granted the defendant's alternative Petition for Removal, finding that the WCJ's January 19, 2022 orders, which canceled trial and ordered further discovery without an evidentiary record, would cause substantial prejudice. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's January 19, 2022 orders and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with the decision, emphasizing the applicant's right to due process and a fair hearing.

RemovalReconsiderationOff Calendar OrderPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ OrdersRescinded OrdersFurther Development of RecordDue DiligencePretrial Conference Statement
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2007

Lago v. City of New York-Workers' Compensation Division

This case involves an appeal by the City of New York-Workers’ Compensation Division from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County. The first order, dated October 19, 2007, denied the City's motion to vacate a prior order approving the petitioner's settlement of a personal injury action. The second order, dated January 22, 2008, denied the City's motion for leave to reargue. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the January 22, 2008 order, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument. The order dated October 19, 2007 was affirmed, with the court finding that the City failed to demonstrate the merit of its position for relief under CPLR 5015 (a) (1).

Settlement ApprovalPersonal Injury ActionAppeal from OrderMotion to VacateReargument MotionCPLR 5015(a)(1)Judicial ReviewAffirmed DecisionDismissed AppealProcedural Issues
References
1
Case No. ADJ2740563 (GRO 0027673) ADJ2522146 (GRO 0028098)
Regular
Mar 19, 2012

LINDA STEVENS vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS

Federal Express sought reconsideration of a WCJ's award to Linda Stevens for a psychological injury as a consequence of her prior orthopedic injuries, arguing insufficient medical evidence and improper diagnostic testing. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely filed. The Board found the petition was received by the Appeals Board on January 17, 2012, which was after the January 13, 2012 deadline for reconsideration following service on December 19, 2011. This procedural defect was jurisdictional, requiring dismissal regardless of the petition's merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryPsycheCompensable ConsequenceOrthopedic InjuryAgreed Medical ExaminerSubstantial Medical EvidenceTemporary DisabilityElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
6
Case No. 532391
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Matter of Richman v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

Claimant, Rebecca Richman, appealed three decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board regarding her claim for a work-related right shoulder injury. She alleged a fall at work on January 19, 2018, but did not seek medical treatment for 19 months. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Board reversed, finding that Richman failed to submit sufficient, credible medical evidence to demonstrate a causally-related injury and denied her claim. The Board subsequently denied her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the Board's finding of no causally-related injury was supported by substantial evidence and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation ClaimCausation (Medical)Shoulder InjuryMedical Evidence SufficiencyBoard ReversalAppellate Division ReviewBurden of ProofCredibility of EvidenceOsteoarthritis DiagnosisDelayed Medical Treatment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Murtagh v. St. Theresa's Nursing Home, Inc.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant's total disability due to a work-related back injury. The board's finding stated that the claimant was totally disabled subsequent to September 19, 1977. Medical evidence, including testimony from Dr. Ralston and Dr. de Ramon, supported the board's determination. Dr. Ralston stated the claimant's condition remained unchanged during the period September 19, 1977, to January 23, 1978, while Dr. de Ramon opined total disability due to the injury as of February 17, 1978. The court found substantial evidence to support the board's decision and affirmed it, noting that conflicting medical opinions present a question of fact for the board to resolve.

Work-related injuryBack injuryTotal disabilitySubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewMedical testimonyConflicting medical opinionsWorkers' Compensation BoardAffirmationQuestion of fact
References
3
Case No. 19
Regular Panel Decision

White v. Pacifica Foundation

Plaintiff Bernard White, an African-American man, sued his former employer, Pacifica Foundation, and board member Stephen M. Brown, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL. White, a program director at WBAI, a radio station owned by Pacifica, claimed Brown sent racially charged emails influencing his termination. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court found that Brown was not personally involved in White's suspension or termination and was not an 'employer' or 'employee/agent' under state and city human rights laws. Furthermore, the court determined that Pacifica provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for White's termination, citing declining fundraising and listenership, and complaints of his abusive behavior. The court granted summary judgment for both defendants, concluding that White failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Law42 U.S.C. Section 1981Program DirectorTerminationWorkplace Harassment
References
218
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2000

Tighe v. Raimondo Construction Co.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Giaquinto Masonry, Inc., appealed from portions of an order denying its motion for summary judgment on causes of action based on Labor Law § 241 (6) and § 200. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellant's workers were responsible for creating the concrete debris that allegedly caused the plaintiff's injuries. The court referenced prior cases to support its decision.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentConcrete DebrisTriable Issue of FactAppellate CourtNegligencePremises LiabilityConstruction Accident
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,318 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