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

National Labor Relations Board v. Goodman

This case involves an appeal concerning the interaction between the National Labor Relations Act and the Bankruptcy Code. Appellants, the NLRB and the Union, challenged a Bankruptcy Court order that shielded James M. Goodman and Goodman Automatic Sprinkler Corporation (GASC) from labor law liabilities based on Goodman's Chapter 7 discharge. The District Court affirmed that Goodman's personal discharge protects him from pre-petition monetary and non-monetary obligations arising from a rejected collective bargaining agreement. However, the court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's finding that GASC was also shielded, concluding that Goodman's discharge does not protect GASC from alleged obligations. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings, including a determination of the alter-ego status of Goodman and GASC under applicable labor law standards.

BankruptcyChapter 7National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementDischargeable DebtsPrimary JurisdictionLabor LawEmployer Obligations
References
16
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06470 [188 AD3d 506]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Singh v. Manhattan Ford Lincoln, Inc.

Plaintiff Balwinder Singh appealed an order denying his motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 241 (6) claims and granting defendants' motions to dismiss various claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The court reinstated Singh's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(2)) and his common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Manhattan Ford Lincoln, Inc. However, it dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(1)) against Benny & Son Construction Corp. The decision noted triable issues of fact regarding whether the debris causing the slip was integral to Singh's work and MFL's constructive notice of the debris. Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(1) was found inapplicable due to the accident's location in an open area, not a passageway.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeWorkplace SafetyConstruction AccidentSlip and FallDebris AccumulationConstructive NoticeAppellate DivisionLiability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Messina v. City of New York

Plaintiff Thomas Messina, an electrician, sustained leg injuries after stepping into an unguarded drainpipe hole while working at Yankee Stadium. He and his spouse filed a lawsuit against the City of New York and the New York Yankees, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). Initially, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim but later reversed its decision upon reargument, deeming the nature of the drainpipe hole a factual question for the jury. However, the appellate court reversed this ruling, clarifying that the interpretation of an Industrial Code regulation is a matter of law. The court concluded that the drainpipe hole, approximately 12 inches in diameter and 7-10 inches deep, did not constitute a "hazardous opening" under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b), thereby entitling the defendants to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Construction site accidentDrainpipe holeHazardous openingSummary judgmentLabor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1)Falling hazardsAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationQuestion of law vs. fact
References
10
Case No. ADJ4140574 (VNO 0417628) ADJ3588068 (VNO 0472981)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

KEVIN THOMPSON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant Kevin Thompson an additional attorney's fee of $1,500 under Labor Code section 5801. This fee is for services rendered by his attorney in successfully defending against the defendant's petition for writ of review to the Court of Appeal. The Board disallowed the requested clerical fees as section 5801 applies only to attorney services. Additionally, the request for costs under Labor Code section 5811 was denied due to the lack of required itemization and supporting documentation.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's feePetition for Writ of ReviewAppeals BoardSupplemental awardReasonable attorney's feeAppellate levelPenaltyClerical servicesLabor Code § 5811
References
12
Case No. ADJ2852962 (SFO 0492897)
Regular
Jul 07, 2011

Francisco Torres vs. Foundation & Earth Retaining Systems, California Insurance Company

The Court of Appeal denied the defendant's petition for writ of review and found no reasonable basis for it. Consequently, the case was remanded for the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to award supplemental attorney's fees under Labor Code § 5801. The WCAB awarded $7,500 in attorney's fees, finding the requested amount excessive and the submitted time records insufficiently detailed despite the penal nature of the statute. The WCAB also awarded $229.96 in appellate costs.

Supplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewReasonable Attorney's FeeAppellate CostsLabor Code § 5811No Reasonable BasisPenal AspectUnverified Time RecordsExcessive Fees
References
1
Case No. W2004-02373-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2005

Lawuan Stanford v. The Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development and Altama Footwear

Lawuan Stanford, a former employee of Altama Footwear, appealed the denial of her unemployment benefits claim after being terminated for failing to report absences. The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development initially denied her claim, which was subsequently upheld by the Appeals Tribunal, the Board of Review, and the Chancery Court for Henderson County. Stanford argued her absences were due to diabetes, but the courts focused on her non-compliance with the employer's policy requiring her to report absences. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Stanford's persistent failure to report her absences constituted 'misconduct connected with her work' under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(a)(2), thereby disqualifying her from receiving unemployment benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsEmployee TerminationWorkplace MisconductAbsenteeism PolicyFailure to NotifyAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawTennessee LawEmployer's InterestStandard of Review
References
15
Case No. M2011-02272-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2012

ARI, Inc. v. James G. Neeley, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed a Chancery Court order upholding the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development's determination that ARI, Inc. underpaid state unemployment tax premiums. ARI appealed the assessment, citing due process violations in the administrative hearing and insufficient evidence. The court found that ARI's due process argument was waived due to a failure to raise the issue appropriately during the administrative process. Furthermore, the court concluded there was substantial and material evidence supporting the Department's finding that ARI failed to notify the Department of employee transfers, violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-403(b)(4). The court also upheld the Department's statutory authority to aggregate accounts and recalculate the tax liability based on the predecessor/successor relationship of the commonly owned entities.

unemployment taxdue processadministrative hearingpayroll transfersTennessee Employment Security Lawagency decisiontax assessmentstatutory authorityexperience ratingemployer liability
References
14
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07089 [143 AD3d 647]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2016

Smith v. Extell West 45th Street LLC

In this case, Darrell Smith was injured while riding an elevator. The Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, determining that a passenger elevator is not a safety device under the statute. However, the court found an error in dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim related to Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e), as there was sufficient allegation of debris causing the fall. Consequently, the Appellate Division modified the order to reinstate that portion of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim and otherwise affirmed the decision.

Labor LawIndustrial CodeElevator AccidentConstruction Worker InjurySafety DevicePremises LiabilityDebris HazardAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissPersonal Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2005

Portillo v. Roby Anne Development, LLC

The defendant, Rubyanne Development, LLC, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied its motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, determining that Rubyanne failed to demonstrate the statute's inapplicability to a falling steel beam. However, the court reversed the decision regarding the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, granting summary judgment to Rubyanne and dismissing that cause of action. This dismissal was based on the finding that the cited Industrial Code provision, 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a) (1), was not applicable as there was no evidence the plaintiff's injury occurred in an area normally exposed to falling objects. Furthermore, the court clarified that the Supreme Court had implicitly dismissed the common-law negligence claim by dismissing causes of action premised upon Labor Law § 200 due to the appellant's lack of supervision or control.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentDemolition WorkFalling ObjectsStatutory InterpretationAppellate DivisionConstruction Site SafetyIndustrial CodeNegligence
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeGabriel v. Strong Place Realty, LLC

This case concerns motions for reargument and renewal following a workplace accident. Plaintiff Cesar DeGabriel was injured when an I beam fell on his leg at a construction site. Plaintiff sued defendants Rockledge Scaffold Corp., Strongrew Realty, LLC, and Strong Place Realty, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). Defendant Rockledge moved to reargue the partial denial of its summary judgment motion on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. Plaintiff cross-moved to reargue and renew the dismissal of his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and the court's finding regarding Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2). The court denied Rockledge's motion, finding issues of fact regarding negligent stacking of I beams under Labor Law § 200. The court also denied plaintiff's motions, ruling that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable as the I beam was stationary, and Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) did not apply, suggesting § 23-2.1 was more relevant. Both the defendant's and plaintiff's motions were ultimately denied.

Workplace accidentLabor Law claimsSummary judgment motionReargumentRenewal motionFalling object injuryConstruction site safetyCommon-law negligenceIndustrial Code violationsPremises liability
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 10,892 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