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. 2025 NY Slip Op 05228
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2025

Leak v. Mungioli

This case concerns an appeal regarding the allocation of litigation costs in a workers' compensation third-party action. The plaintiff, Robin Leak, sued for personal injuries and received workers' compensation benefits from Hicksville Union Free School District, acting as the carrier. After reaching a settlement with the defendants, a dispute arose over amending a consent letter concerning the calculation of legal fees. The Supreme Court initially granted Leak's motion to amend, which would have resulted in a double payment of legal fees. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, emphasizing that under Workers' Compensation Law § 29, the carrier's contribution to litigation expenses should be proportionate to the benefit received, thereby denying the plaintiff's proposed amendment.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party ActionLitigation CostsCounsel FeesSettlement AgreementEquitable ShareCarrier ContributionAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryMotion to Amend
References
3
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 08017 [192 AD3d 91]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2020

Sandoval v. Leake & Watts Servs., Inc.

Eduardo Sandoval, a nonverbal autistic resident, suffered burns from a heated potato masher at a residential facility operated by Leake and Watts Services, Inc. (L&W). His co-guardians sued L&W, its employees Asialone Edwards and Wendell Chavies, alleging battery, negligence, and negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training. The Supreme Court denied L&W's and Edwards' motions for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified this decision, dismissing claims against L&W based on respondeat superior, but affirmed the denial of summary judgment for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training claims, and for Edwards' individual claims. The court highlighted L&W's failure to adequately check employee references and that the potential for abuse was foreseeable based on L&W's own training materials.

Negligent hiringNegligent retentionNegligent supervisionNegligent trainingRespondeat superiorSummary judgmentAutismResidential facilityEmployee misconductPropensity to commit injury
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2013

McGinley v. Mystic West Realty Corp.

Plaintiff Jenice McGinley alleged a slip and fall injury due to a leaking garbage bag in front of a church. Defendants Mystic West Realty Corp. and Trel Restaurant Inc., operating as Rosie O’Grady’s, moved for summary judgment, asserting they had no statutory duty to maintain the sidewalk and did not place garbage there. The Supreme Court initially denied their motion. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to the defendants. The court found defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment, and the church's opposing affidavits, largely hearsay, were insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendants' responsibility for the garbage or the sidewalk. The court also noted that the plaintiffs' assertions were mere conclusions without admissible proof.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySlip and FallSidewalk MaintenanceGarbage DisposalHearsay EvidencePrima Facie ShowingAppellate ReversalNew York LawTort Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 1999

Town of Hempstead v. Inc. Village of Atlantic Beach

This case involves two related actions arising from inter-municipal agreements for waste disposal services. The defendants appealed from initial court orders concerning their obligations to pay minimum waste commitment tonnage fees and their entitlement to various credits, including those for private carters, recyclable materials, and yard waste. The plaintiffs cross-appealed regarding the methodology for calculating yard waste credits and the fees for using the Town's transfer facility. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, issued an initial order and a subsequent amended order upon reargument, clarifying several points. The Appellate Division affirmed the amended order, holding that the agreements unambiguously required villages to pay minimum tonnage fees regardless of actual waste delivered. The court also determined that the villages were only obligated to pay transfer facility fees based on actual waste delivered and that any ambiguities regarding yard waste credits should be interpreted against the Town as the drafter of the agreements.

Inter-municipal agreementsWaste disposalSummary judgmentContract interpretationMinimum commitment feesYard waste creditTransfer facility feesUnambiguous agreementsExtrinsic evidenceAmbiguity construction
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wagner v. Wody

The plaintiff, Russell Wagner, a sanitation worker, was injured by a shard of glass while collecting garbage from the defendants' home. He sued Janice and Jerry Wody for personal injuries. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, ruling that the hazard was inherent to a sanitation worker's duties. Wagner appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that a small piece of glass constitutes ordinary garbage, and the associated hazard is inherent to the sanitation worker's job. A dissenting opinion, however, argued that the reasonableness of disposing of such glass and whether the hazard was "ordinary and obvious" should be a question for a jury, thereby raising a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentSanitation Worker InjuryInherent RiskHazardous WasteBroken GlassHomeowner LiabilityAppellate ReviewNegligenceDuty of Care
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murphy's Disposal Services, Inc. v. Gardner

The petitioners, Murphy's Disposal Services, Inc. and its owner Michael J. Evereth, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination that they willfully failed to pay prevailing wages. Their contracts with the Town of Colonie for waste collection did not always include prevailing wage schedules, and they initially relied on a 1996 Department of Labor opinion letter. However, the 2004 contract specified prevailing wages, and a Department investigator informed Evereth in 2006 that the opinion letter was incorrect. Despite this, petitioners continued to underpay their employees. Following an audit and hearing, a willful underpayment of approximately $70,000 was found. The Court confirmed this determination, asserting that knowledge or imputed knowledge of a violation suffices for a finding of willfulness, and dismissed the petitioners' arguments.

Prevailing wagewillful underpaymentLabor LawCPLR article 78waste collectionpublic contractsadministrative reviewemployee compensationDepartment of Laborbuilding service work
References
8
Case No. ADJ7198861
Regular
Dec 06, 2013

MARK PAPISH vs. SOLANO GARBAGE COMPANY, ZURICH INSURANCE

In Mark Papish v. Solano Garbage Company, both applicant and defendant sought reconsideration of a September 27, 2013 decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted these petitions, citing the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action is intended to allow for a complete understanding of the record and to ensure a just decision after reconsideration. All future filings in this matter must be submitted in writing directly to the WCAB Commissioners' Office.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetitions for ReconsiderationSolano Garbage CompanyZurich InsuranceCannon Cochran Management ServicesMark PapishOakland District OfficeDelana E. LoweW.A.R.R.R.Ronnie G. Caplane
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2003

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Town of Tonawanda Assessor

This case concerns an appeal challenging a determination by the Town of Tonawanda that certain properties owned by the petitioner are subject to special ad valorem levies for garbage collection. The properties, described as narrow corridors with electric and natural gas lines, allegedly generate no solid refuse. The Supreme Court, Erie County, dismissed the petition, concluding the properties were indeed "benefitted" and properly taxable. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, holding that the properties are capable of receiving the service, a potential or theoretical benefit being sufficient for taxation. The court emphasized that the innate characteristics of the property, rather than the owner's proclivities, dictate benefit.

Property TaxationAd Valorem LevySpecial DistrictsGarbage CollectionReal Property LawBenefit AssessmentTaxation ChallengeMunicipal ServicesErie CountyTown of Tonawanda
References
2
Case No. ADJ13986633
Regular
Apr 12, 2023

ROSA JASSO vs. EDCO DISPOSAL CORPORATION, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

In *Jasso v. EDCO Disposal Corporation*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision finding applicant sustained a psyche injury. The WCAB rescinded the original findings due to the parties' subsequent filing of a fully executed Compromise and Release agreement. The matter was remanded to the administrative law judge to consider the settlement. This decision does not rule on the merits of the initial petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRosa JassoEdco Disposal CorporationTravelers Property Casualty Company of AmericaAdjudication NumberSan Diego District OfficeOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactAdministrative Law Judgepsyche and nervous system injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ7866568, ADJ7881566, ADJ7870088
Regular
May 29, 2019

JOEL GONZALEZ vs. EDCO DISPOSAL WASTER AND RECYCLING SERVICES, TRAVELERS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY

This case involves Joel Gonzalez claiming permanent total disability from EDCO Disposal and its insurer, Travelers, due to multiple work injuries affecting his right knee, leg, back, and other conditions. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the prior award, finding the judge improperly issued a combined permanent disability award without proper apportionment and mistakenly relied on Labor Code section 4662 for permanent total disability. The Board rescinded the award and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings to address apportionment and provide a legally supported basis for the permanent disability determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Total DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code section 4663(b)Benson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.AMA GuidesLabor Code section 4660Fitzpatrick
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 157 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