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

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. 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. 2021 NY Slip Op 04070
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of Cisnero v. Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund

Claimant Jeffrey Cisnero, an independent livery driver, sustained injuries when he was shot during a dispatch. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which was initially disallowed by a WCLJ but later reversed by the Workers' Compensation Board, finding coverage through the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF). The carrier appealed, arguing misinterpretation of the relevant statutes, particularly Executive Law § 160-ddd (1). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, determining that Cisnero's injuries arose out of and in the course of providing covered services as an independent livery driver dispatched by an ILDBF member. The court found that the vehicle's attenuated affiliation with the New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund, Inc. did not alter ILDBF's liability.

Workers' CompensationLivery DriverIndependent ContractorBenefit FundAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentStatutory InterpretationExecutive LawWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Review
References
3
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. ADJ9326556 ADJ9768185
Regular
Mar 16, 2018

Walter Donovan vs. United Parcel Service, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

This case involves applicant Walter Donovan, a UPS truck driver, seeking a higher occupational group number (460, material handlers) than the WCJ's finding (350, truck drivers). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, applying the "dual occupation" rule. They found Donovan's duties as a delivery driver included significant loading and unloading, thus entitling him to the higher-rated group number 460 for permanent disability calculations. The Board's decision amends the original award to reflect this occupational group assignment.

Dual occupation ruleOccupational group numberTruck driversMaterial handlersMachine loadersPackage deliveryPermanent disabilityPetition for reconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical Evaluator
References
4
Case No. CA 13-02002
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2015

VEROST, DREW M. v. MITSUBISHI CATERPILLAR FORKLIFT AME

Drew M. Verost and his wife initiated an action for damages after Mr. Verost sustained injuries operating a forklift at Nuttall Gear, LLC. The accident involved a forklift with a disabled safety switch, which pinned Mr. Verost between the mast and the roll cage. The complaint alleged strict products liability against the manufacturer and sellers, and negligence against Nuttall Gear and related entities. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to all defendants, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the products liability claims, citing a substantial alteration to the product by a third party. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the negligence claims against the Nuttall Gear defendants, finding a triable issue of fact concerning Mr. Verost's special employee status.

Product LiabilityNegligenceSummary JudgmentForklift AccidentDisabled Safety SwitchSpecial EmployeeWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewDesign DefectAlteration of Product
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCoy v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

This opinion addresses a framed-issue hearing to classify a Gradall Material Handler Model 534B after a plaintiff was injured. The plaintiff, working for Nab Construction Corporation, was struck by a swinging steel beam moved by the Gradall, which then ran over his leg, due to the absence of tag lines. The central legal question was whether the Gradall, when configured with a cable to hoist a suspended load, should be classified as a "mobile crane" or a "forklift" under the New York State Industrial Code. Defendants argued it was a forklift based on manufacturing standards, while plaintiff contended its operational configuration as a crane should govern. The court ruled that the Industrial Code must be interpreted broadly based on how equipment is used and configured, concluding that the Gradall, when operating as a mobile crane, was subject to mobile crane safety regulations, including the requirement for tag lines.

Mobile CraneForkliftIndustrial CodeConstruction Equipment ClassificationTag LinesASME/ANSI StandardsOSHA RegulationsMultipurpose MachinesStatutory InterpretationWorker Safety
References
9
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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 1,623 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