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

Park v. City of New York

In a personal injury action arising from a construction site accident, the Supreme Court, New York County, initially reduced a jury's award for past pain and suffering from $1,500,000 to $600,000. On appeal, the order was unanimously modified by the Appellate Division. The appellate court further directed a new trial on future pain and suffering unless the plaintiff agreed to a reduction of the award from $800,000 to $400,000. The decision was based on a comparison to similar cases involving comminuted elbow/arm fractures, multiple surgeries, and permanent limitations, while noting the plaintiff's non-dominant wrist fracture added little value as it resolved without surgery.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentDamagesPain and SufferingJury Award ReductionAppellate ReviewFractureElbow InjuryWrist InjuryStipulation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Panzarella v. Multiple Parking Services, Inc.

The case involves a plaintiff who suffered injuries from a fall on an icy parking lot. The defendant appealed the judgment, arguing a lack of actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and insufficient time to remedy it. However, the evidence showed the ice was visible and present for an adequate period for the defendant's employees to discover and rectify it, leading the court to conclude the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court also correctly refused a jury charge on implied assumption of risk as the plaintiff was unaware of the ice. Additionally, the jury's award of $160,000 for future pain and suffering was deemed reasonable given the plaintiff's fractured distal radius, two surgeries, permanent grip and pinch deficiencies, scars, atrophy, and wrist deformity.

Icy ConditionParking Lot FallPremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeJury VerdictAssumption of RiskPersonal Injury DamagesFractured WristSurgical ProceduresPermanent Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2000

Claim of Moreines v. Lawrence Nursing Care Center

Claimant, diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) by 1988, ceased employment in March 1995 due to her work environment exacerbating her condition. She filed a workers' compensation claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Board initially ruled against a causal relationship between her work and MS exacerbation. Following an appeal, the Board amended its decision, affirming the carrier's consultant found no causal link, whose credibility was maintained under cross-examination. The claimant appealed both decisions, arguing the consultant's report was equivocal and the Board should have accepted her expert's unequivocal testimony. The court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding the conflict in medical opinion was within the Board's province to resolve, and the carrier's consultant provided substantial evidence for the Board's finding of no causal link.

Workers' CompensationMultiple SclerosisCausalityMedical OpinionExpert TestimonyBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewDisease ExacerbationWork EnvironmentCredibility
References
4
Case No. ANA 0388502
Regular
Aug 15, 2007

MICHAEL BELTRAN vs. REESE CONCRETE, CLARENDON NAT'L. INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, overturning the WCJ's decision to apply the old permanent disability rating schedule. The Board found that the presence of multiple fractures alone did not constitute a report indicating permanent disability under Labor Code section 4660(d), thus the new 2005 Schedule must apply. The case is returned to the trial level for a new rating and decision regarding permanent disability and attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Disability1997 Schedule2005 ScheduleQualified Medical EvaluatorTreating PhysicianLabor Code section 4660(d)Pendergrass II
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Starr v. Cambridge Green Homeowners Ass'n

Plaintiff, a roofer, was injured after falling from a roof during a construction project. He slipped on wet wood, fell past a scaffold, and sustained multiple fractures, requiring surgeries. He sued Cambridge Green Homeowners Association, Inc. (owner) and Thomas Rose (general contractor) under Labor Law § 240, and Fred Hanlon (co-worker) for negligence in scaffold installation. The appellate court affirmed the judgments and order, finding the jury's verdict consistent and the damages award reasonable given the severity of plaintiff's injuries and their permanent impact on his life and work.

Roofing AccidentConstruction Site SafetyLabor Law 240Proximate CauseNegligencePersonal InjuryDamages AwardPain and SufferingAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2011

Guallpa v. Key Fat Corp.

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered June 8, 2011, which awarded the plaintiff substantial damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff, a construction worker, sustained an ankle fracture, herniated disc, and rotator cuff injury after falling from a ladder in 2006, requiring multiple surgeries. The Supreme Court had granted the plaintiff summary judgment on liability, and a jury determined the damages. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the jury's awards for past/future pain and suffering, lost earnings, and future medical expenses to be reasonable and not speculative, thus rejecting the defendant's challenges.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentFall from HeightLadder InjuryDamages AssessmentJury AwardAppellate AffirmationSummary Judgment LiabilityPain and Suffering DamagesLost Earnings Damages
References
11
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
Case No. ADJ4118575 (MON 0342974)
Regular
May 26, 2010

MANUEL ORTIZ vs. TOWER INDUSTRIES, INC., SCIF INSURED INLAND EMPIRE

This case involves an applicant who sustained severe injuries in a riding accident, including multiple pelvic fractures and urological damage, requiring extensive surgeries. The applicant was awarded 100% permanent disability due to his constant pain, limited mobility, and functional impairments, including urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. The defendant appealed, arguing the 100% disability rating was not justified and disputing the findings of sleep disorder and erectile dysfunction. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the applicant's 100% permanent disability, finding the evidence supported total permanent disability based on the facts of his severe injury and ongoing functional limitations. The Board denied the defendant's petitions for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Total DisabilityPetitions for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAgreed Medical ExaminersLabor Code Section 4662Pelvis InjuryLower Extremity InjuryUrethra InjuryPsyche Injury
References
1
Case No. Appeal No. 61254
Regular Panel Decision

Wehmeyer v. Port Authority

Plaintiff, an employee, suffered multiple injuries, including fractured ribs and a contusion of the left kidney, after falling from a ladder onto a counter in the Eastern Airlines terminal. The initial Supreme Court order granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court modified this order, reinstating the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Eastern Airlines and Port Authority due to unresolved factual issues regarding safe equipment provision. However, claims against New York Helicopter and ASI were dismissed, as they lacked sufficient control over the plaintiff's work to incur liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Motions for reargument were partially granted, while motions for leave to appeal were denied.

Labor LawLadder FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewElevation-Related RiskEmployer LiabilityOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityWorkplace SafetyPersonal Injury
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05611 [174 AD3d 1092]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2019

Hull v. The Pike Co.

Plaintiff Craig D. Hull, a facilities worker, sustained severe injuries, including multiple fractures, when a scissor lift he borrowed from The Pike Company tipped over. Hull subsequently filed a lawsuit against The Pike Company, alleging negligent entrustment of the equipment. The defendant sought summary judgment, contending a lack of prior knowledge regarding Hull's potential dangerous use of the lift. However, the Supreme Court denied this motion, citing a material question of fact concerning whether the defendant knew or should have known about Hull's insufficient training. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the defendant failed to prove the absence of a triable issue of fact regarding negligent entrustment and proximate cause.

Negligent EntrustmentSummary JudgmentScissor Lift AccidentPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewTriable Issue of FactProximate CauseWorker SafetyConstruction Site LiabilityDuty of Care
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,211 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