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. ADJ10657949, ADJ10658047
Regular
Aug 26, 2019

LARRY DAVIS, JR. (Deceased), LYNDA DAVIS vs. PERRIS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Lynda Davis's petition for reconsideration, affirming the finding that her deceased husband, Larry Davis Jr., did not sustain industrial injuries leading to his death. The Board found no industrial causation for death benefits, chest, shoulder, stress, or heart attack claims, despite the applicant's contention of error and request for a psychiatric QME panel. The Board agreed with the administrative law judge that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving industrial causation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ10657949ADJ10658047Lynda DavisLarry Davis Jr. (Deceased)Perris Union High School DistrictKeenan & AssociatesJoint Findings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 1991

Davis v. Pizzagalli Construction Co.

Plaintiff James M. Davis was injured after falling from scaffolding while employed by Arthur Barber, Jr., a subcontractor to Pizzagalli Construction Company, which was hired by Chemung County. Davis and his wife filed damage actions against the defendants, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes absolute liability for failure to provide proper protection for workers at risk due to elevation differentials. The Supreme Court denied the motion, but on appeal, the court found that Davis's uncontradicted testimony established a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) as a scaffold board "kicked up" causing his fall. Defendants' mere speculation and the unwitnessed nature of the fall were deemed insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing, leading to the reversal of the lower court's order.

Scaffolding AccidentAbsolute LiabilityLabor Law § 240(1)Personal InjurySummary JudgmentContractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityWorkplace SafetyFall from HeightProximate Cause
References
13
Case No. ADJ10140589
Regular
Nov 14, 2017

SAUL SALCEDA, JR. (Deceased); ELIZABETH R. SALCEDA, Guardian Ad Litem and Trustee for ELLEN KATE SALCEDA, a minor and NOYLAHNA PHUTSDAY SIBOURIBOUN, a minor vs. DIRECT MOTION, INC.; HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP WORCESTER

This case involves a petition for reconsideration of a denial of workers' compensation benefits for the death of Saul Salceda, Jr. The applicant argued the deceased's fatal injury arose from his employment, but the WCAB affirmed the WCJ's finding that it did not. The WCAB found that while there was a special mutuality between the deceased and his employer, his fatal activities did not benefit the employer directly or indirectly, thus the dual purpose rule was inapplicable. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGuardian Ad LitemTrusteeFindings and OrderPetition for Reconsiderationnon-compensabledual purpose rulearising out ofcourse of employmentdecedent's death
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Butler

Plaintiff William A. Davis, a general employee of Livingston Services, Inc., was assigned to work for Andrew 'Andy' Butler, a general contractor. Davis sued Butler, but the Supreme Court erred in denying Butler's motion for summary judgment. The appellate court found that Davis was a special employee of Butler as a matter of law, meaning his action against Butler was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provisions. Despite Livingston paying wages and providing workers' compensation benefits, Butler maintained complete control and supervision over Davis's work. Therefore, the order of the Supreme Court was reversed, Butler's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint against Butler was dismissed.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeGeneral ContractorSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewEmployer ControlLabor LawNew York LawSteuben County
References
3
Case No. 166 AD3d 1449
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2018

Davis v. Eab-Tab Enters.

Plaintiff Kody Davis, a laborer, was injured while working for defendant Thomas Bender in a building owned by EAB-TAB Enterprises. Davis and his spouse filed a complaint alleging negligence and Labor Law violations. The defendants' insurer, Utica First Insurance Company, denied coverage based on an employee exclusion. After plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert only negligence, Utica First moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing no obligation to defend or indemnify. The Supreme Court denied the motion, deeming Davis an independent contractor. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, finding a triable issue of fact as to Davis's employment status, thus precluding summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentEmployee ExclusionIndependent Contractor StatusInsurance Coverage DisputeLabor LawNegligenceThird-Party ActionAppellate DivisionTriable Issue of FactEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
9
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00906
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

Matter of Davis v. Hutchings Children Servs.

Charlene Davis, a licensed practical nurse, sustained work-related injuries in 2010, leading to two established workers' compensation claims and a classification of permanent partial disability. Approaching the exhaustion of her indemnity benefits, Davis filed requests for an extreme hardship redetermination to achieve reclassification to permanent total disability. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially granted these requests, the Workers' Compensation Board modified the decision, concluding that Davis failed to demonstrate extreme financial hardship. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination. The court found the Board's interpretation of "extreme hardship" to be rational and its decision to deny reclassification supported by substantial evidence, based on a comprehensive review of Davis's assets, income, and monthly expenses.

Workers' Compensation LawExtreme Financial HardshipPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityWage-Earning Capacity LossRedetermination RequestStatutory InterpretationAppellate DivisionBoard Decision AffirmationSocial Security Benefits
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Hogan

The plaintiff, Davis, was expelled from a union and subsequently discharged by his employer, the defendant corporation. He alleged that his expulsion and discharge were unlawful, violating his rights under various statutes, including the State Labor Relations Act. A prior proceeding before the State Labor Relations Board found the corporation guilty of an unfair labor practice by discharging Davis but refused his reinstatement due to his own misconduct. On appeal, the court ruled that the plaintiff's claim falls under the Labor Relations Act, which provides a specific legal remedy through judicial review of the Board's decision. Since the plaintiff failed to pursue this appellate remedy, he cannot maintain a separate action in the Supreme Court. Consequently, the complaint against the defendant corporation was dismissed.

Labor DisputeUnfair Labor PracticeUnion ExpulsionWrongful DischargeCollective Bargaining AgreementState Labor Relations ActJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionDue Process ClaimsAppellate Procedure
References
4
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 03122 [138 AD3d 615]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

Pareja v. Davis

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which had denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The defendant, Anthony Davis, successfully argued for an exemption under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) as an owner of a one or two-family dwelling who did not direct or control the work. Evidence showed Davis was living in England during renovations, and his agent lacked authority to direct construction methods. The plaintiff, Pablo Pareja, failed to present sufficient evidence to counter the defendant's prima facie entitlement to the homeowner's exemption, offering only unfounded speculation about commercial use of the property. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint dismissed.

Labor Law ExemptionHomeowner's ExemptionSummary JudgmentAgency AuthorityDirection and ControlConstruction AccidentsAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryPrima Facie EvidenceRespondent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Plew-Jourdanais v. Adirondack Heating & Frost Insulators, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision granting death benefits to James Jourdanais Jr., the disabled son of the deceased James Jourdanais Sr. The decedent's wife, the claimant, appealed the finding that James Jr. was a dependent, eligible for benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 16 (2-a). The appellate court reviewed the factual question of dependency, emphasizing the need for evidence of adverse financial effect from the loss of the decedent's contributions. Finding no substantial evidence that James Jr. or his guardians were adversely affected by the loss of the decedent's contributions, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawDeath BenefitsDependencyDisabled ChildFinancial ContributionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewReversalRemittalLegal Guardianship
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP

Eunice Martinez sued her former employer, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Martinez claimed she was denied promotions/upgrades, received discriminatory annual raises, and experienced retaliation for filing a charge with the EEOC. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis to her claims. It found Martinez failed to establish a prima facie case for failure to promote/upgrade due to insufficient evidence regarding comparable qualifications and job duties. Her claim of raise discrimination was also denied because her comparators held managerial positions, unlike her. Finally, the retaliation claim was dismissed as adverse job actions predated her protected activity. Consequently, Davis Polk's motion for summary judgment was granted.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISection 1981Summary JudgmentFailure to PromoteUnequal PayEEOC ComplaintMcDonnell Douglas TestEmployment Law
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 1,128 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