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
Mar 16, 1981

Claim of Bock v. Burns, Van Kirk, Greene & Kafer

The respondent Workers’ Compensation Board moved to dismiss appeals filed by the appellant on March 27, 1980, May 7, 1980, and August 18, 1980. The court granted the Board's motion to dismiss the March 27 and May 7 appeals as moot due to a subsequent board determination. The August 18, 1980 appeal was dismissed because the underlying board decision, which merely referred the case to an impartial medical specialist, was nonfinal and therefore not appealable. The claimant's motion dated January 29, 1981, was granted only to the extent that the original board file could be provided as an exhibit. Another motion by the claimant dated March 16, 1981, seeking vacatur of decisions, consolidation of appeals, and change of venue, was denied.

Appeal DismissalMootnessNonfinal DecisionWorkers' Compensation AppealsMotion PracticeJudicial ReviewCase ReferralMedical SpecialistBoard FileConsolidation of Appeals
References
2
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. ADJ11896735; ADJ3117080
Regular
Jun 03, 2025

LORRAINE GONSALVES vs. FRONTIER MANAGEMENT LLC, CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CAMP FIRE USA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) addressed a petition for removal filed by Lorraine Gonsalves (applicant) after she filed a document challenging previous orders, which the Board treated as a petition for removal. The applicant had previously sought reconsideration of a February 18, 2025 decision related to ADJ11896735 and sought review of March 26, 2025 orders taking ADJ3117080 off calendar and continuing ADJ11896735. The Board dismissed the petition for removal, finding that the February 18, 2025 decision was a non-final, interlocutory order from which a petition for reconsideration could not be taken and that the petition was untimely. Regarding the March 26, 2025 orders, the Board determined the applicant had not shown substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJPWCJOff CalendarContinued TrialSet Aside OrderLack of ProsecutionTimelinessFinal Order
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollack v. Safeway Steel Products, Inc.

Plaintiff Emil Pollack, a mason tender, fell from scaffolding while working on a Lowe's store construction site in Orangeburg, New York, on September 25, 2002, sustaining injuries. He sued Safway Steel Products, Inc., March Associates (general contractor), Orangeburg Holding, LLC (land owner), and Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. (developer), alleging violations of New York Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, along with common law negligence and strict products liability. Both plaintiff and defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) against March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg due to factual disputes. The court also denied March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg's cross-motion for summary judgment. Safway's motion for summary judgment was granted for the Labor Law § 200 claim but denied for §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims. March's request for contractual and common law indemnification from CMC Concrete Masonry (a subcontractor and third-party defendant) was denied for summary judgment purposes due to unresolved issues of fault.

Summary judgmentLabor LawScaffolding accidentConstruction site injuryProximate causeContributory negligenceNon-delegable dutyGeneral contractor liabilityOwner liabilityThird-party action
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Patel v. Tal Transportation, Inc.

Claimant, a driver for Tal Transportation, Inc. (TTI), was injured in an automobile accident in April 1996 and filed for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found claimant to be an employee of TTI and established the case for accident, notice, and causal relationship for various injuries. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision on October 18, 2000, confirming the employment relationship. Subsequently, based on a stipulation with the Uninsured Employer’s Fund, the WCLJ awarded claimant a 17½% schedule loss of use of the left arm, which the Board affirmed on December 18, 2001. TTI appealed this latter decision, attempting to challenge the employment relationship, but the court found that TTI's appeal was untimely regarding the employment finding. Since TTI did not challenge the schedule loss of use award itself, the Board's December 18, 2001 decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseEmployment RelationshipTimeliness of AppealAutomobile AccidentUninsured Employer's FundDriverInjuryNew York Workers' Compensation BoardAdministrative Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Baker v. E.J. Construction Group, Inc.

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision filed March 26, 2004, which found he failed to provide his employer with timely notice of a January 14, 2003, work-related injury. The claimant slipped on ice and injured his hip and lower back but did not report the incident until March 2003. The Board reversed an initial award of benefits, concluding the claimant's delay in notice prejudiced the employer by preventing an investigation into the accident and injuries before a subsequent March 2003 incident. Citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 18, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that substantial evidence supported the finding of employer prejudice.

Timely NoticeEmployer PrejudiceWork-Related InjuryAccident ReportBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewInjury SeverityFailure to Investigate
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08791 [178 AD3d 473]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2019

Garcia v. SMJ 210 W. 18 LLC

Plaintiff Juan Garcia was injured when struck by a falling piece of DensGlass while working on a temporary exterior platform on the 21st floor of a building under construction. He was dismantling a bridge linked to an exterior hoist elevator when the material, matching a missing piece from the floor above, struck him. The court reversed the lower court's decision, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding that the exterior facade was incomplete and workers were performing patch work above. Additionally, the court denied the defendants-respondents' cross motions for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, citing a triable issue of fact regarding the necessity of overhead protection in an area exposed to falling objects.

Construction AccidentFalling ObjectLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorker SafetyOverhead ProtectionBuilding Under Construction
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01171 [235 AD3d 591]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Lopez v. 18-20 Park 84 Corp.

Plaintiff Felipe A. Lazaro Lopez, a painter employed by Dowd Interiors, Inc., suffered a fall from a ladder during renovation work. Lopez filed a personal injury lawsuit against 18-20 Park 84 Corp., the building owner, under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court of New York County initially granted Lopez's motion for partial summary judgment on liability against 18-20 Park 84 Corp. and denied Dowd's motion to dismiss third-party claims for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to Lopez. However, it modified the lower court's order by granting Dowd's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the common-law indemnification and contribution claims. This modification was based on the finding that Lopez did not suffer a 'grave injury' as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallIndemnificationContributionGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law
References
10
Case No. ADJ8534090
Regular
Oct 10, 2025

EDDIE KENNISON III vs. DENVER BRONCOS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY

Defendant filed a petition for removal from an election made by the applicant at a hearing on December 18, 2023. Subsequently, on March 18, 2024, the parties filed a petition to withdraw the petition for removal as they had entered into a Compromise and Release, which was approved on the same day. As a result, the petition for removal is dismissed because the issue has become moot.

Petition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseMootAdjudication NumbersWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardVan Nuys District OfficeDismissalApplicantDefendant
References
0
Case No. 2020-09171, N-349-18, N-8740-18, N-8741-18, N-8742-18, N-8743-18, N-8744-18, N-8745-18, N-8746-18, N-8747-18, N-8748-18, N-8749-18, N-8750-18, N-8751-18, N-8752-18, N-8753-18, N-345-19
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2022

Matter of Amaris A. A. (Jasmine R.)

This case details an appeal by Jasmine R., the mother, from a Family Court order in Suffolk County. The Family Court had found that the mother abused her child, Amaris A. A., and derivatively neglected her seven other children, based on evidence of abusive head trauma and multiple healing rib fractures. The Suffolk County Department of Social Services presented expert testimony from a pediatric radiologist confirming non-accidental trauma. The mother failed to rebut the prima facie case of child abuse. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's findings, concluding that DSS established abuse and derivative neglect by a preponderance of the evidence.

Family LawChild AbuseChild NeglectDerivative NeglectAbusive Head TraumaRib FracturesFamily Court Act Article 10Preponderance of EvidencePrima Facie CaseAppellate Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,292 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