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. 2023 NY Slip Op 05661 [221 AD3d 429]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

Keilitz v. Light Tower Fiber N.Y., Inc.

Christopher Keilitz, an electrician working for Hellman Electric Corp., was injured when a vacuum fell into a manhole and struck him during the installation of fiber optic cables. Keilitz sued Light Tower Fiber New York, Inc., Verizon New York, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc., and Empire City Subway (ECS) under New York Labor Law. The Supreme Court initially denied Keilitz's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims and dismissed claims against the defendants. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Keilitz partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against ECS and Light Tower. The court determined that Keilitz's work constituted an 'altering' activity under the statute and that the falling vacuum presented an elevation-related risk, rendering other related claims moot.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentFalling ObjectElevation-Related RiskManhole AccidentFiber Optic InstallationAlteration WorkAppellate DivisionThird-Party ClaimContractual Indemnification
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donegan v. Nadell

Petitioner Donegan, employed in Nassau courts since 1967, was promoted to Court Assistant II and began performing data entry duties following the installation of a computer system in 1973. However, the job specifications for her title did not include computer skills. When a new statewide classification plan was implemented, her position was converted to Principal Office Assistant, a title also lacking data entry duties. Donegan challenged this classification, arguing her actual duties warranted a classification as Data Entry Supervisor. Despite her grievance being partially granted and a provisional appointment to the data entry supervisor role, she was ineligible for permanent appointment due to not taking the required competitive examination. The court affirmed the administrative decision, emphasizing that civil service classifications must be based on "in-title" duties defined by job specifications, not "out-of-title" work performed, and that data entry skills required distinct competitive testing.

Civil Service LawJob ClassificationOut-of-Title WorkData Entry SupervisorPrincipal Office AssistantCourt AssistantPromotional ExaminationAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Havens v. Dallas Power & Light Co.

Henry Havens, while working as a welder on the roof of the new Johnson Bros. Chevrolet warehouse, suffered severe electrical shock and personal injuries when a steel rod he was handling contacted a high voltage line owned and maintained by Dallas Power & Light Company. National Automobile Casualty Insurance Company intervened to recoup $14,440.95 in compensation benefits paid to Havens. The trial court granted Dallas Power & Light Company's motion for summary judgment, leading to a take-nothing judgment. Havens appealed, asserting that questions of fact existed regarding the defendant's notice of the dangerous condition, the defendant's negligence, and the plaintiff's contributory negligence. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the defendant was not required to anticipate dangerous consequences from the high voltage lines, which complied with safety codes, and had no notice of the specific sign erection project that created the hazardous situation.

Summary JudgmentElectrical AccidentHigh VoltagePersonal InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseForeseeabilityConstructive NoticeSafety Code ComplianceWorkers' Compensation Claim
References
9
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02208 [193 AD3d 1216]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2021

Matter of Canela (Sky Chefs, Inc.)

Rolando Canela, a caterer, sustained a work-related back injury in May 2018. He was awarded temporary partial disability benefits, but the employer and its carrier (appellants) challenged the Workers' Compensation Board's finding that he maintained attachment to the labor market. Appellants argued Canela refused a light-duty offer and had an inadequate independent job search. The Board, however, found no specific light-duty offer and deemed his job search, involving about two dozen online applications, sufficiently diligent. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported its determination that Canela did not reject a suitable work offer and demonstrated an attachment to the labor market.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market AttachmentLight-Duty WorkVoluntary WithdrawalSubstantial EvidenceJob SearchDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewThird DepartmentEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2003

C.S.E.A. v. County of Dutchess

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated to challenge a determination by the County of Dutchess dated September 23, 2002, which reclassified job title duties for Social Welfare Worker II employees. The petitioners also sought to enjoin the County from mandating these employees to perform out-of-title work. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, presided over by Justice Pagones, granted the petition. On appeal, the judgment of the Supreme Court was affirmed. The reviewing court found the County's reclassification determination to be arbitrary and capricious, as it lacked a rational basis, was not based on a proper investigation, violated the rules of the Classified Service of Dutchess County, Personnel Policy Manual Rule XXII, and improperly attempted to validate previously imposed out-of-title work.

Job ReclassificationOut-of-Title WorkCPLR Article 78Administrative DeterminationArbitrary and CapriciousPersonnel PolicyJudicial ReviewGovernment EmployeesEmployment LawPublic Sector
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sosa v. Central Power & Light Co.

The Sosas sued Central Power & Light, Houston Power & Light, and General Electric for the wrongful death of Mr. Sosa, alleging liver disease from toxic chemical exposure in the early 1970s. Mr. Sosa died on June 1, 1991, and the Sosas filed suit on June 1, 1993. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, arguing the Sosas' First Amended Original Petition's allegations showed Mr. Sosa was incapacitated for twenty years, implying knowledge of injury. The Sosas attempted to file a Second Amended Original Petition without leave of court to invoke the discovery rule, but it was struck as untimely. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding the Second Amended Original Petition was untimely, leave to file was properly denied, the First Amended Original Petition's allegations constituted judicial admissions, and thus, the limitations defense barred the claim as Mr. Sosa was aware of his injuries more than four years prior to his death.

Wrongful DeathStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentAmended PleadingDiscovery RuleJudicial AdmissionsToxic ExposureLiver DiseaseAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 1995

Claim of Lawrence v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Claimant, an auto mechanic, suffered work-related back injuries in 1987 and 1989, leading to work restrictions and light-duty assignments. Despite performing light duties, the employer issued a "Final Warning" and later terminated him in September 1990, citing absenteeism, poor work performance, and insubordination after permanent medical restrictions prevented him from his original job. Claimant filed a complaint alleging discriminatory discharge under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld a WCLJ's determination that the employer violated § 120 by discharging the claimant in retaliation for his compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence despite the employer's claims of nondiscriminatory reasons, upholding the Board's resolution of factual and credibility issues.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeDiscriminationEmployer RetaliationLight Duty WorkMedical RestrictionsAbsenteeismPoor Work PerformanceInsubordinationCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 1987

Claim of Muzio v. City of Albany

In 1985, a laborer for the City of Albany sustained severe chest and leg injuries in a motor vehicle accident, leading him to seek workers' compensation benefits. The claim was contested by the employer, who argued the claimant refused available light work and voluntarily left the job market. Medical testimonies from Dr. John Fortune and Dr. Dominic Belmonte established that the claimant was restricted to light duties, specifically prohibiting heavy lifting. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the claimant's benefits, determining he had a moderate partial disability and that the work offered by the employer exceeded the medical restrictions. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the employer's "light duty" tasks, including lifting 50-pound salt bags, were beyond medical limitations, and therefore, the claimant's refusal did not constitute a voluntary removal from the labor market.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentChest InjuriesLeg InjuriesModerate Partial DisabilityLight Duty RefusalVoluntary Removal from Labor MarketMedical RestrictionsEmployer AppealBoard Affirmation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. v. Porter

This case concerns an appeal regarding a lawsuit filed by Jack Porter and his wife against Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. The plaintiffs sought 630 hours of overtime pay for Mrs. Porter, who worked as a laundress, under Article 5169 of Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Statutes. The defendant contended that recovery was not possible as Mrs. Porter also worked in the dry cleaning department, not exclusively the laundry. The trial court found the departments intermingled, making differentiation impossible. The appellate court affirmed the finding that the work fell under the statute but reversed the award of attorney's fees, deeming them non-recoverable.

Overtime PayLaundry IndustryDry CleaningEmployment LawWage DisputeStatutory InterpretationAttorney's FeesTexas Civil ProcedureAppeal DecisionWorker Classification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alonso v. Stanley Works, Inc.

Antonio Alonso sued his employer, The Stanley Works, Inc., alleging retaliatory discharge after his employment was terminated while on medical leave for a work-related injury, claiming it was due to his workers' compensation claim. Stanley Works moved for summary judgment, asserting Alonso was terminated under a uniformly enforced six-month leave of absence policy. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Alonso failed to provide evidence that his termination would not have occurred but for his workers' compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the uniform enforcement of a reasonable absence-control policy does not constitute retaliatory discharge under the Texas Labor Code.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentLeave of Absence PolicyUniform EnforcementTexas Labor CodeEmployment TerminationAbsence Control PolicyAppellate ReviewWorkplace Injury
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 11,715 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