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. 2025 NY Slip Op 04032
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2025

Ruiz v. Ewan

The plaintiff, Kenneth Ruiz, was allegedly injured during the construction of a home when a ladder he was descending slipped, causing him to fall 10 to 12 feet. He initiated a lawsuit against F.M. Peroni, Inc., the general contractor, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied Ruiz's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, finding that Ruiz had established a prima facie case of a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation, demonstrating that the inadequately secured ladder was the proximate cause of his injuries. The defendant failed to present a triable issue of fact, leading to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability being granted against F.M. Peroni, Inc.

Construction AccidentLadder FallLabor Law 240(1)Elevation-Related HazardSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor LiabilityProximate CauseSafety Device FailureAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02820 [160 AD3d 1001]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2018

Ruiz v. Ford

Plaintiff Alan Ruiz, a Verizon service technician, sustained personal injuries when tires fell from an office shed roof, struck his ladder, and caused him to fall at premises owned by 5102 Foster Avenue Trust. Ruiz commenced an action against Mike Ford and the Trust, alleging common-law negligence, which was later amended to a single cause of action against the Trust for a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted Ruiz's motion for judgment as a matter of law on liability and denied the Trust's cross-motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the applicability of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court determined that the statute was not implicated as the falling tires were not materials being hoisted or secured, nor was it expected that they would require securing for the undertaking. Consequently, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was reversed, the Trust's motion to vacate was granted, the plaintiff's motion was denied, the Trust's cross-motion was granted, and the amended complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryFalling ObjectLadder AccidentPremises LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewCPLR 4401Judgment as a Matter of LawConstruction SafetyLabor Law Compliance
References
10
Case No. CA 10-02273
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2011

MAZURETT, JUAN v. ROCHESTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

The plaintiffs, Juan Mazurett and Theresa Mazurett, commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against the Rochester City School District after Juan Mazurett was injured in a fall from a collapsing scaffold at a construction site. The accident occurred while he was attempting to climb the scaffold provided by his employer, the general contractor. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and partially denied the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the plaintiffs established a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the scaffold's collapse. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident, finding no evidence that the plaintiff refused to use available safety devices.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor Law ViolationConstruction Site SafetyProximate CauseSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewWorker SafetyStatutory DutyNew York Law
References
11
Case No. CV-24-0601
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Juan Duta-Zumba

In July 2022, claimant Juan Duta-Zumba filed a workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained in a ladder fall while working for Level 5 Carpentry. The employer and its carrier, Urban Atelier Group, LLC and SiriusPoint America Insurance, controverted the claim, disputing employment. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) credited claimant's testimony, establishing Level 5 Carpentry as the employer and confirming work-related injuries. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The carrier appealed, contending the accident was unwitnessed and their due process rights were violated. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's findings regarding the accident and injuries, and that the carrier received adequate due process.

Workers' CompensationLadder FallWork-Related InjuryCredibility DeterminationDue ProcessStatutory PresumptionAppellate ReviewEmployment DisputeMedical EvidenceThird Judicial Department
References
14
Case No. 533094
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Juan Bidot

Juan A. Bidot, a probation officer, filed an occupational disease claim for workers' compensation benefits, alleging he developed posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression due to prolonged exposure to sex offenders. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, disallowing the claim because Bidot failed to demonstrate that his psychological stress was greater than that experienced by similarly situated officers. Bidot appealed the Board's denial of his request for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion as Bidot failed to present newly discovered evidence or a material change in condition.

Occupational DiseasePosttraumatic Stress DisorderPTSDMental HealthWorkers' Compensation ClaimAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionReconsideration ApplicationBoard ReviewProbation Officer
References
9
Case No. 532061
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Juan Abad

Claimant Juan Abad, a general employee of Vanety's Service, LLC and special employee of ACME Furniture, sustained injuries from a fall and filed for workers' compensation benefits. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found Vanety's 100% liable. The Workers' Compensation Board later modified this decision, establishing a general/special employment relationship and equally apportioning liability between Vanety's and ACME. ACME appealed, contesting the apportionment and alleging a denial of due process. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding the apportionment to be within the Board's discretion and the due process claim to be unsubstantiated by the record.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsGeneral/Special EmploymentLiability ApportionmentStaffing AgencyAppellate DivisionDue ProcessBoard Decision ModificationCarrier AppealInjuryLadder Fall
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ruiz v. Lavine

Petitioners Pedro and Flora Ruiz initiated an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the denial of medical assistance by the Monroe County Department of Social Services, a decision affirmed by Commissioner Abe Lavine. The Ruiz couple, having moved from Puerto Rico to Rochester due to Mrs. Ruiz's critical kidney illness requiring immediate hemodialysis, were denied aid on the premise of non-residency and having moved solely for medical treatment. The court, led by Goldman, J., annulled this determination, concluding that the prior fair hearing inappropriately focused on the petitioners' motivation for relocation rather than their genuine intent to establish New York residency. Emphasizing that health-related moves are valid for domicile and that continued property ownership in their prior residence does not negate new domicile, the court remitted the case for a new hearing to properly assess the Ruiz's residential intent.

DomicileResidency RequirementMedical AssistanceSocial Services LawArticle 78Intent to ResideHealth ReasonsConstitutional Right to TravelFair HearingRemand
References
12
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05419 [231 AD3d 683]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2024

Ruiz v. BOP 245 Park LLC

Plaintiff Jose Ruiz moved for summary judgment on liability for his Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims after falling from a scaffold lacking guardrails. The Supreme Court initially denied the motion. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order, granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The court found that plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment, and defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the recalcitrant worker defense or plaintiff's veracity, as there was no evidence that sufficient guardrails were available at the worksite.

Scaffold AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor Law 240(1)Appellate DivisionRecalcitrant Worker DefenseConstruction SafetyPersonal InjuryGuardrailsWorkplace InjurySafety Equipment
References
7
Case No. ADJ3021055
Regular
May 12, 2010

MIGUEL RUIZ vs. PAT LOFTIS FARMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Miguel Ruiz's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, which found Ruiz's testimony not credible. The judge based this finding on conflicting evidence regarding the water truck/trailer involved in the alleged injury and other inconsistencies in Ruiz's statements. The denial upholds the original order that Ruiz take nothing from his claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgecredibilityGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Findings and Orderpro perinjurylow back injuryfall
References
1
Case No. ADJ317834
Regular
Sep 13, 2011

Alexis Ruiz vs. Valley and Farm, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that found Alexis Ruiz was the initial aggressor in an incident leading to his injury. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's (WCJ) report, which found Ruiz's account less credible than the defense's. Key factors included Ruiz's failure to report the alleged assault immediately to his employer, inconsistencies in his testimony, and his cousin's absence as a witness. The WCJ's credibility determination, based on a review of the entire record, was given great weight.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationInitial AggressorAOE/COECredibility FindingTake NothingAffirmative DefenseEvidentiary HearingsSummary of EvidencePercepient Witness
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 330 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