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. 2015-06-0110
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2015

Marsh, Michael v. MAYEKAWA USA

Michael Marsh filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking temporary disability benefits for a left shoulder injury sustained on September 2, 2014. The employer, Mayekawa USA, terminated Mr. Marsh for misconduct, fraud, dishonesty, and falsifying records related to a claim of having twin babies when only one was born. Mayekawa argued that light duty work would have been available but for the termination. Dr. Roy C. Terry, the authorized treating physician, initially released Mr. Marsh to light duty but later took him off work completely due to his financial distress and inability to find employment, not due to a medical change. The Court found that Mayekawa established that Mr. Marsh's misconduct was the sole motivation for his termination and that Mayekawa would have accommodated his light duty restrictions. The Court concluded that Mr. Marsh failed to establish total disability from working as a result of the work injury from January 23, 2015, through March 19, 2015. Therefore, the claim for temporary total disability benefits was denied.

Temporary Disability BenefitsWork-Related InjuryMisconduct TerminationFraudFalsifying RecordsLight Duty WorkMedical RestrictionsFinancial DistressWorkers' Compensation Judge DecisionCausal Connection
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Browne v. Medford Multicare

The claimant, a certified nurse's aide, sustained injuries after falling at work and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits. After rejecting multiple offers for light-duty assignments, the employer and its workers' compensation carrier contended that she had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. The Workers' Compensation Board concurred with the employer's assertion, ruling that the claimant had no compensable lost time following the final light-duty work offer. This decision was appealed. The court affirmed the Board's determination, citing substantial evidence, including the opinion of an orthopedic surgeon who stated that the claimant had a moderate partial disability but was capable of performing light-duty work within specified restrictions.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLight-Duty WorkVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketIndependent Medical ExaminationOrthopedic Surgeon OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewDisability AssessmentCertified Nurse's AideEmployer Offer
References
5
Case No. 2015-08-0106
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2016

McIntosh, Sarah Miles v. Randstad

The case involves an Expedited Hearing requested by Sarah Kaye Mcintosh, an employee, seeking temporary disability benefits from December 30, 2015, to January 18, 2016, for wrist injuries. Randstad, the employer, had previously been ordered to pay benefits. Ms. Mcintosh's authorized physician, Dr. Wm. Lee Moffatt, released her for light duty work after a December 8, 2015 deposition. Randstad offered this light duty work, but Ms. Mcintosh failed to accept it, stating she needed the deposition transcript to confirm the restrictions. Consequently, Randstad terminated benefits, though they were reinstated after her surgery on January 18, 2016. The Court denied her request for benefits for the disputed period, concluding she failed to attempt the offered light duty work.

Temporary Disability BenefitsLight Duty WorkMedical RestrictionsRefusal of Work OfferExpedited HearingTennessee LawCausal ConnectionMaximum Medical ImprovementWrist InjuryEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mocic v. Sumner County Emergency Medical Services

Kimberly Mocic, an EMT, sued Sumner County Emergency Medical Services (SCEMS) for pregnancy and sex discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Mocic alleged a hostile work environment due to comments about her pregnancy and uniform, refusal of light duty work, and retaliation for filing an EEOC charge. The Court granted summary judgment for SCEMS on Mocic's uniform policy and light duty sex discrimination claims, finding she failed to establish an adverse employment action for the uniform policy and could not identify similarly situated male employees for the light duty claim. However, the Court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment and retaliation claims, concluding that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding the gender basis and severity of harassment, and the adequacy of SCEMS's investigation and motivation for Mocic's termination.

Pregnancy DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIITennessee Human Rights ActSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationWorkplace HarassmentUniform PolicyLight Duty Work
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Yannucci v. Consolidated Freightways

A claimant, a truck driver, sustained back and shoulder injuries after striking a curb. He returned to a light-duty clerical position but later retired. The Workers' Compensation Board denied him further benefits, ruling he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. On appeal, the central issue was whether his disability caused or contributed to his retirement. Conflicting medical opinions were presented, with his treating physician recommending retirement due to a 75% permanent partial disability, while the employer's physician believed he could continue light-duty work. The Board credited the employer's physician, noting the employer's accommodations and no lost work time in the light-duty role. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported its decision.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary withdrawal from labor marketDisability benefitsLight-duty workMedical evidencePermanent partial disabilityCredibility determinationSubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewRetirement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Peluso v. Fairview Fire District

The claimant, a firefighter captain, retired in May 1993 due to a disabling back condition from work-related injuries sustained over 20 years of employment. He applied for various disability benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim for workers’ compensation benefits, concluding he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market by failing to accept an available light-duty assignment. The chief of the fire department testified that light-duty positions were available and the claimant refused one prior to retirement without citing work-related injury as his reason. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion, noting medical evidence showed only a partial disability and no inability to perform light-duty tasks. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decisions.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketLight-Duty AssignmentFirefighterDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewMedical EvidencePartial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation Board
References
8
Case No. 2016-08-0085
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2016

Humphreys, Jerry v. Prestigious Placement, Inc.

Jerry Humphreys, a fifty-year-old employee, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing against Prestigious Placement, Inc., his uninsured employer, seeking continued medical and temporary disability benefits for work-related neck and back injuries sustained on June 18, 2015. Humphreys reported the injury to Americraft supervisor and then Prestigious, receiving initial treatment and benefits until January 15, 2016, when benefits were terminated due to alleged refusal of light duty work and fabricated claims. The Court found Humphreys injured himself at work and that the employer's defenses lacked evidence, including their claim of willful misconduct or refusal of light duty work. Presiding Judge Jim Umsted ruled that Humphreys is entitled to continued medical treatment with his authorized treating physician, Dr. Murrell, and ongoing temporary partial disability benefits from January 16, 2016, forward. Additionally, the Court awarded Humphreys' attorney a fee of twenty percent of the temporary disability award.

Expedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityNeck InjuryBack InjuryCervical MyelopathyUninsured EmployerWork-Related AccidentSedentary Work RestrictionsAttorney's Fees
References
3
Case No. 2017-08-1070
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2018

Heard, April v. Carrier Corporation

This case involves April Heard, an employee of Carrier Corporation, who sustained a back and leg injury on August 24, 2017. Carrier accommodated her light-duty restrictions but she was subject to a seasonal layoff from September 1, 2017, to January 3, 2018. Heard sought temporary disability benefits for this period, arguing she was on light duty. The Court denied her request for temporary partial disability benefits, finding her inability to work during the layoff was due to the seasonal layoff, not her work restrictions. However, Carrier stipulated it would pay temporary total disability benefits for a period from October 26, 2017, through November 13, 2017, when Dr. Lonergan totally restricted her from work.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Disability BenefitsSeasonal LayoffLight-Duty RestrictionsTemporary Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployment LawInjury ClaimMedical Restrictions
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. Waterview Nursing Home

A 63-year-old nurse’s aide sustained work-related injuries and her workers’ compensation case was established. She was offered a light-duty position by her employer, but her daughter informed the employer that claimant could not work. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently concluded that by rejecting the offer, claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from employment and denied her further benefits. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the employer failed to provide substantial evidence regarding the specifics of the light-duty position, its requirements, duties, or suitability for the claimant's medical limitations. The court held that without such proof, the Board's finding of voluntary withdrawal was not supported by substantial evidence. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationLight-Duty AssignmentVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketMedical LimitationsSubstantial EvidenceReversalRemittiturNurse's AideEmployment Benefits
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 12,772 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