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

Cuartas v. Kourkoumelis

The plaintiff was injured at a construction site on property owned by defendant Tomis Kourkoumelis when a manhole cover fell on his foot. The plaintiff and a co-worker were attempting to open the manhole cover with a crowbar. The plaintiff alleged Kourkoumelis directed him to clean debris from the retention tank. The Supreme Court denied Kourkoumelis's cross-motion for summary judgment regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, finding issues of fact about his supervision and control. The appellate court reversed the decision, stating there was no evidence of a dangerous condition with the manhole cover and Kourkoumelis's instruction did not demonstrate direction or control over the plaintiff's work. The court emphasized that landowner liability requires exercising supervision and control over the work or actual/constructive notice of a dangerous condition, or directing the manner of work, not just general supervisory authority. Consequently, the cross-motion was granted, and the complaint was dismissed against Tomis Kourkoumelis.

Construction AccidentLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceOwner LiabilitySupervision and ControlDangerous ConditionAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury Damages
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2008

Gordian v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

Plaintiff sustained injuries when a manhole cover flipped open, causing a fall and the sensation of something hot emanating from the hole. The defendants, performing street work nearby, did not own or operate the manhole. Plaintiff alleged that steam service work by the defendants was the proximate cause of the accident. However, the court found no evidence to suggest that the defendants' work could have caused steam to escape, build pressure, and dislodge the manhole cover. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.

Summary JudgmentPersonal InjuryManhole AccidentNegligenceCausationStreet WorkEvidenceBurden of ProofMotion PracticeAppellate Division
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2012

Barreto v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Plaintiff, an asbestos removal worker for P.A.L. Environmental Safety Corp. (PAL), fell into an uncovered manhole in January 2005 during a city environmental project. He brought claims against IMS Safety Corp., Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), and the City of New York for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The plaintiff was instructed by his supervisor to replace the manhole cover before dismantling the containment enclosure, but he failed to do so and fell in. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment and granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The appellate court affirmed, finding the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident for failing to use the available safety device (the manhole cover) and disregarding supervisor instructions. IMS was found not liable due to lack of supervisory authority, and other defendants were not liable under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence due to no supervision or notice of defect.

Personal InjuryLabor LawManhole AccidentNegligenceSummary JudgmentSole Proximate CauseSafety DeviceSite SafetyEmployer LiabilityContractor Liability
References
6
Case No. Docket No. 2020-01-0787; State File No. 108369-2019
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2022

Holt, John v. Quality Floor Coverings, LLC

This appeal addresses requests for admissions under Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 36. The employee, John Dickerson Holt, III, failed to timely respond to the employer's, Quality Floor Coverings, LLC, requests. The trial court denied the employer's motion to deem the statements admitted, citing non-compliance with a regulation requiring a good-faith effort to resolve discovery disputes. The Appeals Board reversed this decision in part, clarifying that Rule 36 is self-executing and a good-faith certification is not required when no timely response is served. The Board affirmed that the admitted requests are conclusively established and remanded the case for the trial court to further consider the remaining requests.

Discovery DisputeRequests for AdmissionsProcedural ErrorWorkers' Compensation AppealRule 36Self-executing RuleTrial Court DiscretionRemandTennessee LawAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. 2020-01-0787
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2022

Holt III, John v. Quality Floor Coverings, LLC

This case involves an interlocutory appeal where the employer, Quality Floor Coverings, LLC, challenged the denial of its summary judgment motion against employee John Dickerson Holt, III. The employer argued that Mr. Holt was ineligible for increased permanent disability benefits due to his incarceration when his initial benefit period concluded. The trial court's denial was affirmed by the Appeals Board, which found the employer failed to provide sufficient material facts regarding the employee's post-injury work status, as required for summary judgment in workers' compensation claims. The Board underscored that an employee's incarceration is merely one factor to consider and that such cases are generally not amenable to summary judgment. Consequently, the case was remanded, with costs taxed to the employer.

Summary Judgment DenialInterlocutory AppealPermanent Disability BenefitsEmployee IncarcerationBurden of ProductionTennessee Rules of Civil ProcedureEnhanced Benefits ClaimMaterial Fact DisputeAppellate Board DecisionWorkers' Comp Law 50-6-207
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baird v. Gormley

Plaintiff was injured on July 3, 2007, when his vehicle passed over an improperly covered manhole, causing him to lose control and hit a tree in Colonie, Albany County. The manhole was adjacent to property where defendants American Design & Contracting, LLC and Hometown Modular Builders, LLC were constructing a modular home for the Gormleys, with Hometown contracting Bellamy & Sons Construction Company, Inc. to connect the property to the public sewer line. Plaintiff commenced a negligence action, alleging that one of the defendants had left the manhole open. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to Bellamy, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision. The appellate court found a triable issue of fact as to Bellamy's responsibility, noting Bellamy was hired for the manhole work prior to the accident and failed to provide employee time cards for the accident date, which could infer negligence.

NegligenceManhole accidentSummary judgmentContractor liabilityTriable issue of factAppellate reviewConstruction siteAlbany CountyPrima facie caseEvidentiary proof
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lashlee v. Pepsi-Cola Newburgh Bottling

The Special Disability Fund appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant's average weekly wage calculation. The claimant, injured while employed by Pepsi-Cola, also had concurrent employment with Mid-Hudson Limousine Service, Inc. and Robert H. Auchmoody Funeral Homes, Inc. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) included Auchmoody as a concurrent employer, increasing the claimant's average weekly wage. The Fund argued that Auchmoody should not be considered a "covered" employer because there was no proof of workers' compensation insurance. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ’s decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that "covered" employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) refers to an employer subject to the Workers’ Compensation Law, irrespective of whether they actually carried an insurance policy, and that the law must be liberally construed in favor of employees.

Workers’ CompensationConcurrent EmploymentAverage Weekly WageCovered EmploymentIndependent ContractorSpecial Disability FundInsurance PolicyLiberal ConstructionAppellate DivisionWCLJ Decision
References
4
Case No. 2016-06-1403
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2016

Davenport. Ted v. Advanced Remodeling and Floor Covering LLC

Ted Davenport, an employee of Advanced Remodeling and Floor Covering, LLC, sustained severe injuries to his hand and ribs in a table saw accident during employment. He sought medical and temporary disability benefits after his employer, Aaron Waldrum, refused to pay, claiming Mr. Davenport was a subcontractor and that the company had no workers' compensation insurance. The Court, finding Mr. Davenport to be an employee and the employer uninsured, ruled that Mr. Davenport is likely to prevail on the merits. Consequently, the Court ordered Advanced Remodeling to cover past and ongoing medical expenses and temporary total disability payments, also deeming Mr. Davenport eligible for benefits from the Uninsured Employers Fund due to the employer's non-compliance.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorUninsured EmployerMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityInjury Sustained at WorkTable Saw AccidentThoracotomy
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Betz v. West Genesee Central School District Board of Education

A proceeding was initiated by a petitioner, a maintenance worker, challenging his dismissal for incompetence. The petitioner was found incompetent for displacing a manhole cover with a snowplow and failing to investigate, leading to a teacher falling into the open manhole hours later. While the court found substantial evidence to support the finding of incompetence, it concluded that the penalty of dismissal was an abuse of discretion. Considering mitigating factors like the petitioner's length of service and lack of prior incidents, the dismissal was deemed disproportionate. Consequently, the determination was modified, the penalty vacated, and the matter remitted for a less severe sanction.

Public EmploymentEmployee DismissalAbuse of DiscretionSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative LawCivil Service Law § 75CPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewPenalty MitigationWorkplace Incident
References
10
Case No. ADJ7144907
Regular
Jun 26, 2012

OSVALDO BERNAL vs. NATIONAL CITY FLOOR COVERINGS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This order denies Osvaldo Bernal's petition for reconsideration in his workers' compensation case against National City Floor Coverings and Insurance Company of the West. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board adopted the administrative law judge's report and recommendations, finding no basis to overturn the original decision. Consequently, the Board officially denied reconsideration of the matter.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNational City Floor CoveringsInsurance Company of the WestADJ7144907Order Denying ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judge ReportApplicantDefendantRonnie G. Caplane
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,274 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