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 00133 [190 AD3d 505]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2021

Santana v. MMF 1212 Assoc L.L.C.

Plaintiff, Juan C. Santana, was injured during demolition work when a ceiling fell and struck him. He brought claims under Labor Law §§ 241 (6) and 200, alleging violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §§ 23-1.8 (c) and 23-3.3 (c). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Richard Mishkin Contracting Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding issues of fact regarding the provision of safety hats and ongoing inspections. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against MMF 1212 Assoc L.L.C. and Finkelstein Timberger East Real Estate LLC, as plaintiff did not oppose and they lacked control over the work. Finally, Mishkin's cross-claims for common-law contribution and indemnification were not dismissed due to conflicting expert opinions on the gravity of plaintiff's brain injury under Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Demolition AccidentFalling ObjectsConstruction SafetyLabor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentContribution ClaimIndemnification ClaimWorkers' CompensationAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05500 [242 AD3d 829]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2025

DeMarco v. C.A.C. Indus., Inc.

The plaintiff, Peter DeMarco, suffered personal injuries when excavation walls collapsed at a Queens work site. He sued C.A.C. Industries, Inc., a contractor that provided a backhoe and operating engineer to his employer, the City of New York Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Supreme Court, Queens County, partially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing claims under Labor Law § 200 and certain Labor Law § 241 (6) violations, while denying dismissal of the common-law negligence claim. The plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendant lacked authority to supervise for the Labor Law claims but failed to demonstrate a special employment relationship, leaving triable issues of fact regarding the common-law negligence claim and whether the defendant's excavation created or exacerbated the dangerous condition.

Excavation CollapseTrench SafetyLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSpecial EmploymentContractor NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary Judgment AppealDuty of Care
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pardo v. Bialystoker Center & Bikur Cholim, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order, dated September 12, 2002, and the second, dated February 27, 2003, had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and precluded him from asserting Labor Law claims at trial concerning the alleged failure of defendants to secure a scaffold with "tie-ins." The appellate court modified the lower court's orders, vacating the provisions that barred the plaintiff from offering evidence regarding the defendants' alleged failure to use tie-ins. The court affirmed the orders in all other respects. It emphasized that under Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that injuries were partially attributable to the defendant's failure to implement statutorily mandated safety measures to protect against elevation-related risks. The court also clarified that contributory negligence is irrelevant in such cases. The plaintiff's belated request to plead a violation of Industrial Code § 23-5.8 (g) was denied due to an unequivocal waiver of his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentElevation HazardsProximate CauseContributory NegligenceTie-insWorkplace AccidentStatutory Safety MeasuresAppellate Decision
References
7
Case No. ADJ8469531, ADJ9267403
Regular
May 02, 2019

KAREN DOUGLAS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision that barred the applicant's psychiatric claim under Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(1). The WCAB rescinded the original Findings and Award for both consolidated cases. The matters are returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision, guided by a subsequent WCAB en banc opinion addressing section 4660.1(c). The WCAB did not address other issues raised in the applicant's petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPsychiatric claimLabor Code section 4660.1(c)(1)Permanent total disabilityInjury to body partsReport and RecommendationPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental pleading
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2001

LaBarbera v. C. Volante Corp.

This action, brought under the Labor Management Relations Act and ERISA, sought recovery of delinquent pension fund contributions from October 1, 1993, to June 30, 1997. The court previously granted default judgment against C. Volante Corp. and C. Volante Trucking Corp. Plaintiffs, trustees of Local 282 Funds, moved for summary judgment against the remaining defendant, Vital Trucking Corp. The court found C. Volante Corp. liable for contributions based on its course of conduct, adopting collective bargaining agreements. C. Volante Trucking Corp. was found jointly liable under the 'single employer' theory due to shared operations, management, and ownership with C. Volante Corp. Vital Trucking Corp. was found jointly and severally liable under the 'alter ego' theory, as it was formed shortly after Volante/Trucking ceased operations, sharing substantially identical business purpose, equipment, customers, and management with the Volante family, indicating an attempt to avoid CBA obligations. The court denied Vital's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' motion, adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation for damages.

Labor Management Relations ActEmployee Retirement Income Security ActPension Fund ContributionsDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentSingle Employer DoctrineAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementUnion Labor
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. C & F Builders, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of an electrical contractor (George C. Squires), was injured at a construction site when he fell through a floor opening. He sued various parties, including the framing contractor, C & F Builders, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, while C & F Builders cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss all claims against it. Supreme Court granted C & F Builders' cross-motion regarding the Labor Law claims, finding that C & F Builders, as a prime contractor, lacked the authority to supervise or control the electrical work or enforce safety standards at the site. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that C & F Builders could not be held liable under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6).

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentPrime Contractor LiabilitySupervision and ControlWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryNegligence
References
8
Case No. ADJ9914916
Regular
Feb 22, 2017

RUSSELL MADSON vs. MICHAEL J. CAVALETTO RANCHES, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant who sustained a psychological injury after a severe truck rollover accident. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) overturned a prior ruling that denied permanent disability for the psychological injury. The WCAB found that Labor Code section 4660.1(c), which limits psychiatric disability awards arising from physical injuries, did not apply because the psychiatric injury was directly caused by the traumatic events of employment. Furthermore, the Board determined the accident itself constituted a "violent act," qualifying for an exception to section 4660.1(c) and entitling the applicant to compensation for his psychiatric impairment, ultimately awarding 60% permanent disability.

AOE/COELabor Code section 4660.1(c)violent actreconsiderationpsychiatric permanent disabilitymotor vehicle accidentcatastrophic injuryPTSDGAF scoreQME
References
6
Case No. ADJ9474687
Regular
Jun 14, 2019

GUSTAVO NIEVES UGALDE vs. ROCKWELL DRYWALL, INC., STARR INDEMNITY, adjusted by YORK RISK MANAGEMENT GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior award and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding the applicant's psychiatric injury was a consequence of his physical injury, not directly from a violent act. The Board determined the applicant's fall from stilts, while accepted as industrial, did not meet the legal definition of a "violent act" required for an increased psychiatric impairment rating under Labor Code § 4660.1(c)(2)(A). Therefore, the case must be returned to allow the WCJ to first determine if the injury qualifies as "catastrophic" under § 4660.1(c)(2)(B) for potential increased psychiatric rating. The WCAB acknowledged the applicant's credible testimony regarding the use of stilts and the psychiatric QME's opinion on causation but found the issue of a "violent act" was not sufficiently established.

AOE/COEViolent ActCompensable ConsequencePsychiatric InjuryPermanent DisabilityReconsiderationFindings and AwardMedical EvaluatorVocational ExpertLabor Code Section 4660.1
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Becerra v. Promenade Apartments Inc.

In this dissenting opinion, Judge DeGrasse argues against the majority's implicit finding of liability under Labor Law § 241 (6), which was predicated on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.5 (c) (3). The plaintiff, a demolition worker, was injured by an angle grinder lacking a guard. Judge DeGrasse contends that Industrial Code § 23-1.5 (c) (3) is a general safety standard and does not specifically mandate guarding for grinders, unlike saws which are explicitly covered in § 23-1.12 (c) (1). Applying statutory construction principles, the dissent concludes that the omission of grinder guarding requirements in the Industrial Code signifies an intentional exclusion, thus precluding liability under the invoked provision.

Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.5(c)(3)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.12(c)(1)Angle Grinder InjuryDemolition WorkerStatutory InterpretationRegulatory InterpretationSafety Device RequirementsMachinery GuardingDissenting Opinion
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07297
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2021

Teodoro v. C.W. Brown, Inc.

The plaintiff, Silvino Teodoro, an employee of Westchester County Electric, Inc., suffered an electric shock in August 2013 while replacing a light ballast. He brought an action against C.W. Brown, Inc., Westpark I, LLC, Nine West Group, Inc., and PepsiCo, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted summary judgment to all defendants and denied the plaintiff's motions. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decisions, ruling that the plaintiff's work constituted routine maintenance, which is not covered by Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Furthermore, the court found that the defendants did not exercise supervision or control over the plaintiff's work, thus precluding liability under Labor Law § 200.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentRoutine MaintenanceSpoliation of EvidencePersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyElectric ShockGeneral ContractorSubcontractor Liability
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 11,274 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