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
Feb 15, 1990

Narine v. Handler

Oduth Narine, an employee of Protection Systems Specialists, Inc., was injured while inspecting a ventilation system. Narine and his wife initiated a negligence action against his employer and co-employee Howard Handler, alleging failure to provide a safe workplace. The defendants sought summary judgment, claiming the suit was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, given Narine had already received benefits. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the order was modified; summary judgment was granted to Protection Systems Specialists, Inc. due to the exclusivity of Workers' Compensation benefits. However, the denial of summary judgment for Handler was affirmed, as questions of fact remained regarding his employment relationship.

NegligencePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyCo-employee LiabilityFactual QuestionsAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilitySafe Place to Work
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1988

Richiusa v. Kahn Lumber & Millwork Co.

Cologero Richiusa suffered personal injuries at Flushing Truck Repair Co. and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits as an employee of Kahn Lumber & Millwork Co., Inc. Richiusa then initiated a negligence action against both Flushing Truck and Kahn Lumber. The Supreme Court denied both defendants' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was reversed, with the appellate court concluding that the workers' compensation award served as an exclusive remedy against Kahn and that Richiusa was a special employee of Flushing Truck, thereby barring the action against both defendants. The complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewNegligenceEmployment StatusStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 1968

Claim of Fries v. Ridge Lumber, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision. The Board affirmed a compensation award for accidental frostbite of both feet for claimant Fries, a truck driver for Ridge Lumber, Inc., from January 12, 1968, to April 8, 1968. However, the Board rescinded payments after this date and restored the claim for further proceedings regarding subsequent disability. The appellants contended that temperatures were higher than claimed and noted a lack of medical evidence regarding causal relationship. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the claim for further proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of medical testimony on causal relation.

Workers' CompensationFrostbiteCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceDisability BenefitsTruck DriverYard WorkerRemittalAppellate DivisionBoard Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Choto v. Consolidated Lumber Transport, Inc.

The claimant, an owner-operator of a truck and trailer, suffered multiple injuries in April 2006 after falling from a loaded flatbed trailer. He subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim, listing Consolidated Lumber Transportation, Inc. as his employer. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board determined that an employee-employer relationship existed. On appeal, the court found insufficient substantial evidence to support the Board's finding, noting that the claimant owned and maintained his equipment, paid his own expenses and insurance, was issued an IRS 1099 form, and had flexibility in choosing loads. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Employee ClassificationIndependent Contractor StatusWorkers' Compensation AppealControl Test FactorsFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsSubstantial Evidence ReviewRemittal OrderTruck Driver InjuryLeased EquipmentSelf-Employment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farrington v. Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc.

Plaintiff Gerard Farrington sustained personal injuries while unloading wooden planks from a flatbed truck at a construction site managed by Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. and owned by Columbia University. The planks, supplied and loaded by Feldman Lumber, fell and struck him. Farrington filed a lawsuit alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6), as well as Vehicle and Traffic Law section 388(1). The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment by both the Bovis and Feldman defendants. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that material issues of fact existed regarding the applicability of Labor Law § 240(1) and common-law negligence claims.

Personal InjuryConstruction SafetyFalling MaterialsSummary Judgment MotionLabor Law Section 240(1)Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 388(1)Common-Law NegligenceAppellate DecisionPremises LiabilityDuty of Care
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Potter v. Jay E. Potter Lumber Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of R&R Precision Construction, was injured when a forklift, used to unload aluminum sheeting from a Jay E. Potter Lumber Co. truck, tipped due to an overload. Plaintiff and the Leaton defendants (property owners, doing business as Leaton Farms) appealed a Supreme Court judgment. Appeal No. 1 challenged the jury's finding that Potter Lumber's negligence was not a substantial factor in the accident. Appeal No. 2, brought by the Leaton defendants, contested the directed verdict against them on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the judgment, finding Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable due to the gravity-related injury from an inadequate safety device, and concluding the jury's verdict regarding Potter Lumber's negligence was not inconsistent or against the weight of the evidence.

Personal InjuryLabor LawNegligenceForkliftConstruction AccidentElevated RiskGravity HazardInadequate Safety DeviceProximate CauseJury Verdict Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2002

Claim of Potter v. Curtis Lumber Co.

The claimant's decedent, a former marketing design manager for Curtis Lumber, committed suicide after experiencing work-related stress. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded the claimant death benefits, finding the suicide was precipitated by a depressive illness causally linked to severe workplace stress. Curtis Lumber and its workers' compensation carrier appealed, arguing the stress was not greater than that usually found in a normal work environment and that lawful personnel decisions caused the suicide. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the testimony of a board-certified psychiatrist provided substantial evidence that the decedent's suicide was causally related to abnormal work-related stress and implicitly rejecting the carrier's defense under Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7).

SuicideWork-Related StressDepressive IllnessWorkers' Compensation Death BenefitsCausal RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceMedical Expert TestimonyPersonnel DecisionsAppellate ReviewAffirmed Decision
References
11
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05796
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2023

Sason v. Dykes Lbr. Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Raphael Sason alleged that his deceased brother's mesothelioma resulted from asbestos exposure caused by Durham Rock Hard putty, a product obtained from defendant Dykes Lumber Company, Inc., among other suppliers. Dykes Lumber moved for summary judgment, asserting a lack of specific causation based on an expert's affidavit that calculated the decedent's asbestos exposure to be within ambient air levels. In opposition, plaintiff presented affidavits from a medical expert and an industrial hygienist whose reports, relying on simulation studies, concluded that the decedent's work created toxic concentrations of asbestos fibers exceeding known causative levels for mesothelioma. The Supreme Court denied the motion, recognizing a factual dispute regarding causation, and the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision.

MesotheliomaAsbestos ExposureSummary Judgment MotionCausation EvidenceExpert TestimonyIndustrial HygienistMedical Expert OpinionAppellate AffirmationToxic TortsProduct Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feigles v. Costal Lumber Co.

Plaintiff Ralph Feigles brought a negligence and New York Labor Law Section 200 action against defendant Costal Lumber Company after suffering a slip and fall on ice at Coastal's property in January 1995 while working for a subcontractor. Coastal moved for summary judgment, contending it owed no duty and was not negligent. The court granted Coastal's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Feigles' complaint in its entirety. The decision was based on several grounds, including the plaintiff's failure to prove Coastal had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, the application of the "storm in progress" rule, Coastal's lack of supervisory control over the plaintiff's work, and the fact that the icy conditions were readily observable. Therefore, the court concluded that Coastal could not be held liable for Feigles' injuries.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentLabor Law Section 200Slip and FallIcy ConditionsLandowner LiabilityDuty of CareStorm in ProgressNoticeSupervisory Control
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2005

Godoy v. Baisley Lumber Corp.

A plaintiff, an employee of John Dominick Cusumano, Inc., suffered personal injuries from a 20-foot fall through an unsecured loading dock door while working on a renovation project. The building was owned by Baisley Lumber Corporation and leased by 120 Whitehall Realty Associates, LLC. The plaintiff sued both entities, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants on multiple claims. However, the appellate court modified this decision, denying summary judgment for the defendants regarding common-law negligence, Labor Law § 200, and Labor Law § 240 (1), citing the defendants' failure to provide adequate safety devices and prove lack of notice of the dangerous condition. The dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 was affirmed, as that regulation was deemed inapplicable to the specific facts of the fall through a hazardous opening.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstruction SiteElevation-Related RiskSafety DevicesNegligenceAppellate ReviewNew York Law
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 105 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