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

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. ADJ6699348
Regular
Mar 17, 2016

KANON MONKIEWICZ vs. RM STORE FIXTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to find that Labor Code section 4903.8(a) does not preclude awards to lien claimants Rx Funding Solutions, LLC and PharmaFinance, LLC. This is because the 2014 amendments to section 4903.8(a)(2) specify that it does not apply to assignments completed prior to January 1, 2013. Both of the lien claimants' assignments were made before this date, thus exempting them from the preclusion. The WCAB is amending its previous order and returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings on the merits of the liens.

Labor Code 4903.8Lien claimantsAssignment of receivablesCessation of businessPharmacy lienMedical lienSB 863AB 2732Prospective vs. retrospective applicationWCAB rules
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2011

Capuano v. Tishman Construction Corp.

Plaintiff Philip Capuano, a carpenter employed by Donaldson Acoustics, suffered a back injury on February 26, 2007, after slipping on a sprinkler pipe while installing sheetrock at a construction site owned by Yeshiva University. Capuano and his wife subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), specifically citing Industrial Code provisions regarding tripping hazards and inadequate illumination. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) liability. Defendants appealed, questioning the existence of violations and Capuano's credibility. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that plaintiffs established a prima facie case of Labor Law § 241 (6) violations, and defendants failed to raise a material issue of fact.

Labor LawConstruction Site AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentTripping HazardInadequate LightingIndustrial Code ViolationNondelegable DutyWorkers' CompensationAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ6757406
Regular
Apr 08, 2013

ESPERANZA CARRILLO vs. INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC. (formerly WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER), REDWOOD FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order dismissing several lien claims. The dismissal was due to the lien claimants' failure to pay the required lien activation fee as mandated by Labor Code section 4903.06(a)(4). The Board also admonished certain lien claimants for failing to properly notify the employer and the Board of changes in their representatives as required by Labor Code section 4903.6(b). The WCJ's report, incorporated by the Board, found the lien claimants' arguments regarding constitutionality and procedural due process to be without merit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimantsLabor Code section 4903.06Lien Activation FeeDismissal of LiensDue ProcessSB 899SB 863EAMS
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2001

Rice v. Board of Education

A plaintiff, a steel worker employed by Atlas Gem Erectors (subcontractor), suffered personal injuries after his leg fell into a hole in a flatbed truck while working at a site managed by Turner Construction Co., Inc. (general contractor). The action initially involved claims under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), with the latter citing Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (b) regarding "hazardous openings". The trial court dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but allowed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim to proceed, leading to a jury verdict finding Turner 100% at fault for the accident. On appeal, the judgment was reversed; the court ruled that Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (b) was inapplicable because the hole was not large enough for the plaintiff to completely fall through. Furthermore, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, clarifying that unloading a truck does not constitute an elevation-related risk under the statute, and consequently, the complaint and third-party complaint were dismissed.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial CodeHazardous OpeningElevation-Related RiskAppellate ReviewJury VerdictDamages ReductionCPLR 4404
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2007

Wynne v. B. Anthony Construction Corp.

This case concerns an appeal by multiple defendants, including B. Anthony Construction Corporation, from an Orange County Supreme Court order denying their motion for summary judgment in a personal injury lawsuit. The plaintiff, a dump truck driver, sustained injuries when the ground beneath his truck collapsed due to an underground septic tank at a construction site. The plaintiff's lawsuit alleged common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Appellate Division modified the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to the defendants on the common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) claims, concluding there was no elevation-related risk or notice of the dangerous condition. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, as the defendants failed to demonstrate compliance with relevant Industrial Code provisions.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law 200Labor Law 240 (1)Labor Law 241 (6)Common-Law NegligenceConstruction AccidentDump Truck AccidentGround CollapseAppellate Division
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 1994

Hess v. B & B Plastics Division of Metal Cladding, Inc.

Plaintiff Carolyn K. Hess sued her former employer B & B Plastics and her union (Local 686 and UAW) for sex discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law. She alleged discriminatory firing by B & B Plastics and discriminatory refusal by the union to pursue her grievance. The union defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that Hess's claim against them constituted a breach of the duty of fair representation, which is preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Hess moved to remand the case to state court, arguing her claims were independent state law actions. The court, citing precedent, found that Hess's state law claims against the union were completely preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to remand those claims to state court was denied, and the court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim against the employer.

Sex discriminationNew York State Human Rights LawLabor Management Relations ActLMRA Section 301Federal preemptionDuty of fair representationMotion to remandFederal question jurisdictionWell-pleaded complaint ruleCollective bargaining agreement
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. 225 East 57th Street Owners, Inc.

Plaintiff Carlos Garcia, a laborer, was injured on January 16, 2007, while removing mirrored wall panels for JMPB Enterprises, LLC, at a cooperative apartment building owned by the defendant in Manhattan. He was injured when a panel broke and cut his hand. Garcia sued, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The motion court dismissed most claims but allowed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (b) (3) and (c) to proceed. The appellate court reversed, dismissing the remaining § 241 (6) claim, holding that the Industrial Code provisions relied upon were inapplicable because the injury resulted from the deliberate performance of work, not from structural instability caused by the progress of demolition work, which the codes are designed to address. The court clarified that the breaking of the mirror was not a hazard contemplated by the cited Industrial Code provisions.

Personal InjuryLabor LawIndustrial CodeDemolition WorkStructural IntegrityHazardSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyMirror Removal
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Webber v. City of Dunkirk

Justices Lawton and Balio dissent in part from a ruling, agreeing that 12 NYCRR 23-4.2 (k) and 23-9.2 (b) lack sufficient specific standards for a Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. However, they disagree with the application of 12 NYCRR 23-9.5 (c), arguing it does not apply as the backhoe was in use during the accident, and any violation was not a proximate cause. They reject the notion that the backhoe was not in use while workers raked blacktop, as the operator remained inside with the engine running. Furthermore, they dismiss the argument that lowering the bucket would have alerted workers to forward movement, deeming it speculative and not aligned with the regulation's purpose. Thus, they would grant summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Labor LawBackhoe AccidentSummary JudgmentProximate CauseConstruction SafetyAppellate ReviewDissenting OpinionWorkplace Safety RegulationsNew York Labor LawIndustrial Code
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2004

Thomas v. Fall Creek Contractors, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order denying his motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims. The appellate court modified the order, dismissing both claims. The court found that the temporary wooden stairs, from which the plaintiff fell, were under construction and the plaintiff was aware they were not bolted. Another set of completed stairs was available. The stairs did not break and were not defective, implying the plaintiff's actions were the sole cause of injury. Regarding the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, which relied on 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(4)(i) concerning portable ladders, the plaintiff conceded the specific 36-inch extension requirement was not applicable. Since no other regulation was cited, this claim was also dismissed.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentConstruction AccidentTemporary StairsSole Cause of InjuryLadder RegulationAppellate ReviewNew York CourtCPLR 3212(b)
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 9,497 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