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. CA 10-01067
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

TIMMONS, JOSEPH v. BARRETT PAVING MATERIALS, INC.

Joseph Timmons sustained injuries while working on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to a lawsuit alleging Labor Law violations. Barrett Paving then initiated a third-party action against Timmons' employer, Schneider Brothers Corporation, and a separate action against Colony Insurance Company. The Supreme Court granted Barrett's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims in Action No. 1, and denied Colony's motion in Action No. 2, declaring Barrett an additional insured. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The court also affirmed Schneider's duty to defend Barrett and Colony's obligation to provide coverage to Barrett as an additional insured.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial Code RegulationsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured EndorsementConstruction Site SafetyGravity-Related Accidents
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Campbell v. Interstate Materials Corporation

The claimant, an operating manager for Interstate Materials Corporation, suffered injuries to his neck, back, and knees in August 2006 and a second lower back injury in April 2008. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially classified the claimant with a permanent total disability and struck the independent medical examiner's report. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding the IME report improperly precluded due to the examiner's hospitalization and reclassified the claimant with a permanent partial disability, equally apportioned between the two accidents. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in considering the IME report and that substantial evidence supported both the permanent partial disability classification and the equal apportionment of the disability.

Permanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardApportionment of DisabilityMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Cross-Examination RightsAbuse of DiscretionSubstantial EvidenceConflicting Medical Opinions
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peckham v. Peckham Materials Corp.

This case involves an appeal by the defendant, Peckham Materials Corporation, in a wrongful death action. The plaintiff's decedent, John S. Peckham, was killed in a helicopter crash while a passenger in a company-owned helicopter. The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, striking the affirmative defense of workers' compensation. The Appellate Division reversed the order, holding that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of compensation benefits. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court with instructions to defer the motion's disposition until the Workers' Compensation Board makes a final determination regarding the plaintiff's eligibility for benefits.

Wrongful DeathWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHelicopter AccidentEmployer LiabilityJudicial DeferenceRemittalEstate Claim
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clayton B. Obersheimer, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America

Plaintiff, a subcontractor for Massa Construction, Inc., initiated an action against defendant surety to secure payment on a labor and materials bond after Massa ceased payments due to alleged breaches by plaintiff. Defendant denied plaintiff's claim, asserting plaintiff materially breached its subcontract by failing to make pension contributions, provide releases, and obtain a separate payment bond. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability, which defendant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of compliance and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding a material breach. The court noted that alleged non-payments to suppliers only affected the subcontract price, not Massa's obligation to continue performance, and found no requirement for plaintiff to pay pension contributions to the Iron Workers District Council or obtain a separate payment bond from glaziers unions.

SubcontractorSurety BondPublic Improvement ProjectLabor and Materials BondPartial Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractPension ContributionsPayment ObligationsGlaziers Unions
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Riedel v. Steger Material Handling Co.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment, finding evidence that J.G.M. Installation & Service, Inc. created the accident condition and Steger Material Handling Co., Inc. was responsible for its subcontractor's negligence. The court also correctly denied the plaintiff's motion to pierce Steger Material's corporate veil and add Richard Steger as a defendant, asserting that insufficient corporate assets do not justify disregarding the corporate form. However, the court erred by granting the plaintiff's motion for additional causes of action under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), as the plaintiff was not a protected worker under these statutes. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order by denying that portion of the plaintiff's motion, while the plaintiff's remaining contention was not preserved for review.

Summary JudgmentProximate CauseCorporate VeilLabor LawSubcontractor NegligenceAppellate ReviewMotion to Amend ComplaintProtected WorkersVicarious LiabilityErie County Supreme Court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rought v. Price Chopper Operating Co.

This dissenting opinion argues against applying material hoisting regulations to the process of installing electrical wires by pulling them through conduit. The dissent asserts there is no evidence that the equipment used was lifting or suspending the wires. It highlights that the forklift was used to apply force to pull wires through a 90-degree angle, not to raise them. The opinion refers to the plaintiff's deposition, which clarified that the forklift applied force only after the wire was pushed to the turn, leading to tension that caused the wire to recoil when the rope broke. The dissent concludes that the equipment did not constitute "material hoisting equipment" under 12 NYCRR subpart 23-6, and therefore, the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action should have been dismissed. Stein, J., concurred.

material hoistingelectrical wiresforkliftconduit installationLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)summary judgmentdissenting opinionworkers protectionsafety regulations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AIG Europe (Netherlands), N v. v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.

Plaintiff AIG Europe (Netherlands), N.V. ("AIG") initiated a subrogation action against Defendant UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. ("UPS") following damage to an x-ray machine during shipment. AIG, acting as the insurer for Philips Medical Systems Nederlands, B.V., asserted claims for breach of contract, bailment obligations, and tort. UPS sought summary judgment to limit its liability to $9,479.61, while AIG cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing against the enforceability of any liability limitation and its invalidity under the Carmack Amendment. The Court denied both motions for summary judgment on the contractual liability issues, citing genuine disputes of material fact regarding the existence and terms of a binding agreement between the parties. Furthermore, the applicability of the Carmack Amendment and the material deviation doctrine could not be determined as a matter of law. However, UPS's motion for summary judgment on AIG's tort claim was granted as it was unopposed.

SubrogationContract LawBailmentTort LawSummary JudgmentCarmack AmendmentInterstate CommerceLimitation of LiabilityShipping DamageX-ray Machine
References
50
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00932
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

Matter of Powers v. State Material Mason Supply

Michael Powers, a delivery truck driver, filed a workers' compensation claim for back injuries attributed to repetitive stress at work. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision, disallowing the claim due to a lack of a causally-related occupational disease. Claimant appealed this decision and the subsequent denial of his application for reconsideration. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, finding that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence. A key factor was an ex parte letter from claimant's counsel to his treating physician, which was found to have improperly influenced the physician's medical opinion regarding causation.

Occupational DiseaseRepetitive Stress InjuryCausationMedical OpinionEx Parte CommunicationAppellate ReviewCredibility AssessmentDegenerative DiscsSpinal StenosisTreating Physician Testimony
References
11
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03398 [239 AD3d 1235]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2025

Prevost v. Associated Materials, LLC

Plaintiff Dakota Prevost sought damages for injuries sustained after falling from a roof while working for C&M Renovations. Defendant Quad-Tech Home Solutions, Inc. hired defendant Creekside Renovations, LLC for new construction and C&M for roofing. The Supreme Court, Onondaga County, granted Creekside's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Creekside was not a general contractor liable under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) or 241 (6). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed this decision, holding that Creekside was a prime contractor without authority to oversee or control C&M's activities or employees. Additionally, an appeal from a "letter decision and order" was dismissed for not constituting an appealable order.

Labor Law LiabilityConstruction AccidentRoofing FallSummary Judgment MotionAppellate AffirmationPrime Contractor vs General ContractorWorkplace SafetyStatutory InterpretationNegligence ActionInjury Claim
References
10
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00202 [179 AD3d 1277]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2020

Matter of Angarano v. Crucible Materials Corp.

The claimant, Paul Angarano, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied review of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling. The Board denied review because the claimant's counsel failed to properly complete the RB-89 form, merely referencing an attached brief for substantive information instead of filling out the required sections. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board acted within its discretionary authority in denying the application due to non-compliance with procedural formatting requirements for the RB-89 form.

Procedural ComplianceRB-89 FormApplication DeficiencyDiscretionary AuthorityWorkers' Compensation RegulationsAppellate ReviewAdministrative AppealFormal RequirementsDenial of ApplicationCase Law Affirmation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,190 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