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

Dugandzic v. New York City School Construction Authority

Mirolsav Dugandzic, a painter, sued multiple defendants, including the NYCSCA, Trataros Construction, and Crowe Construction, after slipping on paint remover at Fort Hamilton High School in 1992. He alleged negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200 and 241(6), and Industrial Code section 23-1.7(d). The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the accident was due to his work, they lacked notice of a dangerous condition, and no Labor Law violation. The court found the motions timely and dismissed the Labor Law section 241(6) claim, as the Industrial Code section 23-1.7(d) was deemed inapplicable to the plaintiff's self-created slippery condition. However, the court denied the dismissal of the Labor Law section 200 claim against some defendants, citing a factual dispute over supervisory control. The City's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing all claims against it due to a lack of evidence of its supervision or control.

Labor LawIndustrial CodeWorkplace SafetySummary Judgment MotionNegligence ClaimConstruction Site AccidentSlippery FloorEmployer LiabilitySupervisory ControlHazardous Materials
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nagel v. D & R REALTY CORP.

Bruce Nagel, an elevator safety inspector, suffered injuries after slipping on oil during a two-year safety test. He and his wife sued D & R Realty Corp., the building owner, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), particularly Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (d). The claims under §§ 200 and 240 (1) were withdrawn. Both the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division granted summary judgment to the defendant, ruling Nagel's work was routine maintenance, not construction, demolition, or excavation under Labor Law § 241 (6). The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Labor Law § 241 (6) protections do not extend to maintenance work outside the construction context.

Elevator accidentLabor LawSection 241(6)Routine maintenanceConstruction workDemolition workExcavation workIndustrial CodeSafety inspectionBuilding owner liability
References
6
Case No. ADJ10146503
Regular
Oct 20, 2018

ALAN KOON vs. RZ PLUMBING, INC.; AMTRUST

This case concerns an award of attorney's fees and costs to applicant's attorney, Robert Rassp, pursuant to Labor Code section 5801. The Second District Court of Appeals had previously remanded the matter for this purpose. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed Rassp's request for 13.25 hours of work and $865.59 in costs, totaling $6,165.59. The Board disallowed two hours of travel time due to lack of clarity on the reasonableness and nature of the activity. Ultimately, the Board awarded Rassp a total of $5,365.59 in attorney's fees and costs.

Labor Code section 5801attorney's feescostsremandWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardbill of particularsreasonableness of feestravel time deductionawarded amounttrial level return
References
0
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gottlieb v. Kenneth D. Laub & Co.

This case examines whether Labor Law § 198 (1-a), which grants attorney’s fees in wage claims, applies broadly to all wage claims or is restricted to violations of Labor Law article 6. Plaintiff Seymour Gottlieb, a former real estate salesman, sought unpaid commissions from Kenneth D. Laub & Company, asserting a common-law contract claim and a violation of Labor Law § 198. The lower courts awarded attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that the attorney’s fees and liquidated damages remedies under Labor Law § 198 (1-a) are exclusively for wage claims based on substantive violations of Labor Law article 6. The Court emphasized that the statute’s plain language, legislative history, and purpose, along with common-law principles against awarding attorney’s fees, limit its applicability to claims arising directly from article 6.

Labour LawWage ClaimAttorney's FeesLiquidated DamagesContract ClaimStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentCommon LawArticle 6Employment Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diamond D Construction Corp. v. New York State Department of Labor (DOL) Bureau of Public Works

This decision addresses Diamond D Construction Corp.'s motion for reconsideration, challenging the court's prior denial of a preliminary injunction. The court re-evaluates its stance on Eleventh Amendment immunity, concluding that Diamond D's claim for prospective injunctive relief against the Department of Labor's enforcement actions is not barred, distinguishing previous cases like Tekkno and Yorktown. While affirming the applicability of the Younger abstention doctrine, the court acknowledges that a 'narrow' exception for bad faith or harassment by the DOL might apply. To resolve factual disputes regarding whether the DOL acted in bad faith or violated Diamond D's substantive due process rights, the court grants the motion for reconsideration in part and orders evidentiary hearings.

Federal CourtEleventh AmendmentYounger AbstentionDue ProcessProcedural Due ProcessSubstantive Due ProcessMotion for ReconsiderationPreliminary InjunctionState SovereigntyEvidentiary Hearing
References
17
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08577
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2018

Quigley v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

Plaintiff Thomas Quigley sustained injuries after slipping on snow-covered pipes located directly outside his employer's work site shanty. The case involved claims under Labor Law § 241 (6) based on alleged violations of Industrial Code sections 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), (e)(1), and (e)(2), as well as common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200. The court modified a prior order, denying defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), finding an issue of fact regarding whether the accident occurred in a walkway. It affirmed the dismissal of the claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e)(1) as inapplicable to outdoor areas, but affirmed the denial of dismissal for claims based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e)(2), 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (a)(1), common-law negligence, and Labor Law § 200. The appellate court concluded that defendants failed to demonstrate lack of notice regarding the dangerous condition.

Slip and fallConstruction site accidentLabor LawIndustrial CodePremises liabilityDangerous conditionSummary judgmentDuty to warnNoticeAppellate review
References
10
Case No. ADJ3767421 (SFO 0438615)
Regular
Aug 02, 2010

MICHELLE ROUTSON vs. JOHN EVANS, D.D.S., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision that found it lacked jurisdiction over a petition to transfer structured settlement payment rights. The WCAB rescinded the prior decision, holding that the five-year limitation under Labor Code section 5804 does not apply to commutations of compensation payments. Instead, such matters are governed by Labor Code section 5100, which allows the WCAB to commute payments at any time if certain conditions are met. The case is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to determine if the proposed transfer satisfies section 5100 and related Insurance Code provisions.

Structured settlement transferPetition for ApprovalInsurance Code §10134Labor Code §5804commutationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardjurisdictionrescindedfive-year limitationLabor Code §5100
References
1
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. 2022 NY Slip Op 00890
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2022

Sanchez v. BBL Constr. Servs., LLC

Plaintiff Jose W. Sanchez, an employee of D&J Concrete Corp., allegedly sustained injuries at a construction site in Rockland County after tripping over a protruding drain pipe while pouring concrete. He initiated a personal injury action against the property owners (CRH Realty IX, LLC, and Crystal Run Healthcare, LLP), the general contractor (BBL Construction Services, LLC), and the plumbing subcontractor (Joe Lombardo Plumbing & Heating of Rockland, Inc.), alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6). The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment submitted by the defendants and third-party defendant D&J, prompting an appeal. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court's order. It ruled that the defendants successfully demonstrated that the alleged dangerous condition was open and obvious, not inherently dangerous, and that they lacked authority to supervise the plaintiff's work, thereby dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. Additionally, the court found the Industrial Code provision (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (e) (2) cited for the Labor Law § 241(6) claim inapplicable, as the pipe was considered an integral and permanent part of the ongoing construction. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment dismissing all causes of action were granted.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentCommon Law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial CodeOpen and Obvious HazardInherently Dangerous ConditionSupervisory Authority
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 9,925 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