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

Metropolitan Movers Ass'n v. Liu

Petitioners challenged the Comptroller's 2010 prevailing wage schedule for movers, arguing it was irrational and inconsistent with survey results, particularly regarding the application of Labor Law sections 220 and 230. The court found that the Comptroller incorrectly applied the 30% rule from Article 8 (Labor Law section 220), which is meant for 'Public Work' employees, instead of the discretion-based standard under Article 9 (Labor Law section 230) for 'Building Service Employees' like movers. The court also deemed arbitrary and capricious the Comptroller's inconsistent use of 'industry C' employees – including them to meet the 30% threshold but excluding their lower wages from the calculation. Consequently, the court annulled the Comptroller's prevailing wage schedule and remanded the case for a proper determination of the actual prevailing wage under Labor Law section 230, while denying other specific requests from the petitioners.

Prevailing WageLabor LawCPLR Article 78Comptroller DeterminationBuilding Service EmployeesMovers IndustryCollective Bargaining Agreement30% RuleArbitrary and CapriciousAdministrative Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 1989

Widawski v. United Beef Packers, Inc.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed an order denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Defendant United Beef Packers failed to sufficiently establish its defense as a matter of law. Material issues of fact exist regarding whether United Beef Packers had severed all ties to the Indiana meat-packing plant where the plaintiff sustained injury on September 7, 1986. This injury occurred before the plaintiff’s employer, Hebrew National Kosher Foods, Inc., moved its operation there. The various depositions did not resolve whether the plaintiff’s sole remedy lies against Hebrew National based on workers’ compensation.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationMaterial Issues of FactCorporate LiabilitySevered TiesMeat-packing PlantEmployer ResponsibilityPersonal InjuryAppellate DecisionSupreme Court
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gannon v. All Car Movers, Ltd.

The plaintiff suffered personal injuries after slipping on an ice patch on the steps of a building. The building was owned by Abbey Island Park, Inc., leased to Apex Transportation Corp., and subleased to All Car Movers, Ltd. Abbey Island Park, Inc. appealed an interlocutory judgment finding it liable, arguing insufficient evidence of its control over the premises or notice of the ice. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the jury could rationally find the lessor retained control due to a lack of documentary evidence transferring maintenance duties and its own continued grass mowing. Furthermore, the court found the jury could reasonably infer the lessor had notice of the ice patch, which likely formed from a snowstorm six days prior to the accident, despite minor precipitation the day before.

Premises LiabilitySlip and FallIce AccumulationLessor ControlConstructive NoticeJury Verdict SufficiencyAppellate AffirmationPersonal InjuryReal Property LawNassau County
References
9
Case No. ADJ8944738, ADJ8028796, ADJ8030015
Regular
Jan 21, 2014

MANUEL GODOY vs. CARGILL BEEF PACKERS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Zenith Insurance Company, Lamanuzzi and Pantaleo

The Appeals Board granted petitions for removal by defendants Cargill Beef Packers and Zenith Insurance Company, rescinding a prior order consolidating three workers' compensation cases. Consolidation was deemed premature due to significant prejudice and potential trial delay, particularly concerning Zenith's pending statute of limitations and post-termination defenses. The Board ordered the January 30, 2014 priority hearing in Zenith's case to proceed as scheduled. Future consolidation considerations will require notice to all parties.

Petition for RemovalConsolidation OrderPrejudiceTrial DelayCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryAgreed Medical ExaminersAOE/COE TrialStatute of Limitations DefensePost-Termination Defense
References
2
Case No. ADJ8979705
Regular
Oct 01, 2016

VENANCIO GALLEGOS vs. ROSE & SHORE RITE WAY RR MEAT PACKERS, INCORPORATED/RITE-WAY MEAT PACKERS, INCORPORATED, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order to further develop the record. This decision was based on the WCJ's premature order to depose the original PQME, Dr. Steiger, before ruling on whether his reports were admissible. The Board found that requiring this deposition without a ruling on Dr. Steiger's availability would be premature and cause irreparable harm. The case is returned to the trial level for a status conference before a new judge to address the PQME dispute and other issues.

Petition for RemovalVacating SubmissionPQME depositionMedical report admissibilityCross-examinationWCJ orderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRecord developmentPrecedentIrreparable harm
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2014

Somereve v. Plaza Construction Corp.

The injured plaintiff, operating a prime mover to hoist bricks onto a scaffold, was ejected when the machine flipped forward. The court affirmed partial summary judgment for the plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. It ruled that the accident was gravity-related, stemming from the prime mover's failure to provide adequate protection or the inability of the equipment to support the load. The defendant's arguments regarding comparative negligence or the need for further discovery were rejected, as comparative negligence is not a defense under Labor Law § 240 (1) and additional testimony would not alter the outcome. The court reiterated that if a statutory violation is a proximate cause of injury, the plaintiff cannot be solely to blame.

Construction AccidentHoisting Equipment FailurePrime Mover AccidentScaffold WorkGravity AccidentSummary Judgment GrantedLabor Law § 240(1)Comparative Negligence IrrelevantStatutory DutyWorkplace Ejection
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Noto v. Ford Motor Co.

A claimant who worked as a welder for 26 years developed a 30.6% binaural hearing loss attributed to high noise levels during employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the self-insured employer entirely responsible for this loss. The employer appealed, arguing that a portion of the disability was attributable to the claimant's previous employment with Growers & Packers Cooperative & Canning Company. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-ee (1), which holds the last employer liable for total compensation for hearing loss unless specific conditions for apportionment are met and proven. Despite the employer conducting a preplacement hearing examination and notifying Growers & Packers, the court found insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between any preexisting hearing loss and the prior employment, siding with the claimant's testimony. The employer's other contentions, including a request for further record development, were deemed without merit.

Hearing LossOccupational DiseaseWorkers' CompensationApportionmentLast Employer LiabilityPreplacement ExaminationNoise ExposureEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kupiec v. Christensen

Plaintiff Mr. Kupiec, injured in a 1978 automobile accident while employed by Kupiec Building Movers, settled a personal injury claim against the defendants for $6,000. The State Insurance Fund, as the workers' compensation carrier for Kupiec Building Movers, had expended $5,919.44 in benefits and $570.87 for medical treatment. Plaintiff moved to declare the workers' compensation lien null and void. The court denied the motion as modified, ruling that while the State Insurance Fund is not entitled to a lien for payments made in lieu of first-party benefits (medical expenses and certain loss of earnings), it can assert a lien for other benefits. Specifically, payments for a permanent partial disability ($4,284) and a permanent facial disfigurement ($400), totaling $4,684, were not considered first-party benefits. The court reduced this lien by the State Insurance Fund's apportioned share of costs, disbursements, and attorney's fees, allowing a lien of $3,122.66.

Workers' Compensation LienAutomobile AccidentFirst-Party BenefitsNo-Fault LawInsurance LienSettlement ProceedsPermanent Partial DisabilityFacial DisfigurementState Insurance FundSubrogation Rights
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cozzy v. Movers, Inc.

Claimant, a driver and helper for a moving company, sustained a compensable arm and shoulder injury in July 1985. His doctor cleared him for work in May 1986, but before he could return, his employer's president terminated his employment. The claimant subsequently filed a workers' compensation discrimination complaint. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board found discrimination, a decision the employer then appealed. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the termination was discriminatory, stemming from the injury's healing time, internal company politics, and insurance carrier issues. Consequently, the Board's determination was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationDiscriminationTerminationWork InjuryRetaliationEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceInjury LeaveEmployer Appeal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Musso v. Earth Movers, Inc.

Claimant, a heavy equipment operator, injured his back in November 1985 when his truck seat collapsed. He reported the injury and filed for workers' compensation, but his supervisor assaulted him. After initial treatment by orthopedist Raymond Kurzner, claimant later sought chiropractic care from Michael Rand in March 1987 due to ongoing back pain. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found a work-related injury, and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, ruling that the injury was subject to exacerbation and awarded benefits. The employer appealed, challenging the work-related nature of the injury and its causal relationship to the 1987 disability. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing testimony from the claimant, a co-worker, and the chiropractor's medical opinion regarding causation.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryAccidental InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical OpinionCredibilityExacerbationOrthopedistChiropractorEmployer Liability
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 37 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