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. 2017 NY Slip Op 01454
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2017

Sokolovic v. Throgs Neck Operating Co., Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning hold harmless and indemnity agreements. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Vision Healthcare Services' motion to enforce a hold harmless agreement and Throgs Neck Operating Company, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim against Vision. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed these orders. The court held that the plaintiff was obligated to hold Vision harmless from Throgs Neck's indemnification claim due to a hold harmless agreement executed during settlement. It further clarified that a nurse provided by Vision to Throgs Neck remained Vision's general employee, thereby triggering Vision's contractual indemnity obligation, despite being considered a special employee of Throgs Neck for the purpose of Throgs Neck's liability to the plaintiff.

hold harmless agreementcontractual indemnityspecial employeegeneral employeestaffing agreementsettlement agreementsummary judgmentnegligenceagency liabilityappellate review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gaston v. Great Neck Union Free School District

Luis Gaston, an employee of Bay Welding, Inc., was injured while working at a school owned by Great Neck Union Free School District. Gaston initiated a negligence action against the School District, which subsequently filed a third-party complaint against Bay Welding, Inc., seeking indemnification for allegedly failing to procure general liability insurance as per their contract. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment to the School District, finding Bay Welding, Inc., had not provided proof of the required insurance. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that the contract regarding insurance coverage was ambiguous and necessitated a trial to determine the parties' intent.

Personal InjuryNegligenceContract DisputeIndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance CoverageContract AmbiguityThird-Party Action
References
0
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02902 [238 AD3d 836]
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2025

Canales v. Rye Neck Union Free Sch. Dist.

The plaintiff, Osman Canales, an employee of Sea Breeze General Construction, Inc., sustained injuries after slipping and falling approximately five feet from a truck step at a construction site at Daniel Warren Elementary School. He initiated an action against Rye Neck Union Free School District and Daniel Warren Elementary School, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and parts of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, while denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the five-foot descent was not an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1) and that Industrial Code provisions 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) and (e) (2) were inapplicable because truck steps are not considered 'elevated working surfaces' and the injury resulted from a slip, not a trip.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7Elevation-related riskSafe place to workSummary judgmentSlip and fallConstruction accidentTruck egressAppellate Division Second Department
References
13
Case No. CV-22-1920
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Lawrence (Larry) Updike

Lawrence Updike's workers' compensation claim, initially for a 1996 back injury, was later amended to include a consequential neck injury and settled in 2005 as a permanent partial disability. In 2013, while working for Synthes, he sustained new neck and arm injuries, filing another claim, and during an independent medical examination, he denied prior neck problems. After stopping work in 2019 due to worsening symptoms, a subsequent claim was combined with the 2013 claim. The employer and carrier alleged a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation, arguing Updike intentionally failed to disclose his prior neck injury. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board, however, credited Updike's testimony, finding that although his memory of the 1996 claim specifics might have been flawed, he did not intentionally withhold material information to obtain benefits, and thus no violation occurred. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the Board is the sole arbiter of witness credibility, especially when its findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityFraud AllegationCredibility DeterminationAppellate ReviewNeck InjuryBack InjuryIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Misrepresentation of FactsWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-a
References
8
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02923 [217 AD3d 1045]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

Matter of Updike v. Synthes

Claimant Lawrence Updike sustained work-related injuries to his back in 1996, which was later amended to include a consequential neck injury. In 2013, while working for Synthes, he sustained further neck and arm injuries. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier subsequently alleged a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation, contending Updike intentionally failed to disclose his prior neck injury during evaluations for his 2019 symptoms. However, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers' Compensation Board found Updike to be credible, ruling that no such violation occurred. The Board concluded that while Updike's memory of the 1996 claim specifics might have been flawed, he did not intentionally withhold material information to obtain benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the Board is the sole arbiter of witness credibility and its decision will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityReduced Earnings AwardWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraud AllegationCredibility DeterminationIndependent Medical ExaminationNeck InjuryBack InjuryAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bennett v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board ruled that the claimant's cervical spine injury claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 because it was filed more than two years after the 2010 work-related accident, which initially caused back and leg injuries. Although the claimant argued that a carrier's payment for a 2010 CT scan constituted an advance payment of compensation, the court disagreed, noting the CT scan did not reveal neck abnormalities at the time and subsequent treatment focused on other injuries. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the neck injury claim was untimely.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsTimeliness of ClaimNeck InjuryBack InjuryAdvance Payment of CompensationIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate DivisionNew YorkWorkers' Compensation Board Appeal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gordon v. Green Bus Lines, Inc.

Claimant suffered work-related neck, back, and shoulder injuries in June 1996 and ceased working in September 1998 due to severe symptoms. He filed a workers' compensation claim seeking authorization for additional medical treatment. Conflicting medical testimony was presented; his treating physiatrist deemed him totally disabled, while the carrier's physician attributed symptoms to age and prior injuries, denying a causally related ongoing disability from the 1996 accident. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) credited the carrier's physician, finding no further causally related disability or compensable lost time since December 1998. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The claimant appealed, requesting remittal for further record development because he was not called as a witness, but the court affirmed, noting this issue was not raised previously and the WCLJ was entitled to resolve medical testimony conflicts based on substantial evidence.

Work-related injuriesNeck injuriesBack injuriesShoulder injuriesMedical treatment authorizationTotal disability claimConflicting medical testimonyCausally related disabilityWorkers' Compensation Law Judge decisionWorkers' Compensation Board affirmation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bottieri v. Travelers Insurance

Claimant, a senior benefits specialist, developed physical and psychiatric symptoms due to perceived job-related stress from early 1990, including headaches, neck/arm pain, "auras," and a seizure. Despite the stress, she sought and received a promotion in 1992, followed by a demotion in 1993, after which she stopped working and filed for workers' compensation benefits in November 1993. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found the claim compensable, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, concluding that claimant was not exposed to undue job-related stress and that personnel decisions were lawful. On appeal, the court determined that the claim was not barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7) as the symptoms predated the personnel decisions. However, the court affirmed the Board’s denial of benefits, finding substantial evidence that the claimant failed to demonstrate her experienced stress was greater than that of similarly situated workers in a normal work environment.

Workers’ CompensationJob StressAccidental InjuryPersonnel DecisionsPromotionDemotionMental InjuryPhysical SymptomsUndue StressNormal Work Environment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vale v. Great Neck Water Pollution Control District

The plaintiff, Shanna M. Vale, initiated an action against her former employer, Great Neck Water Pollution Control District, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. She claimed that after breaking her wrist, her job duties were significantly altered to include strenuous tasks, and she faced harassment, including disruptions to her personal workspace. Furthermore, the plaintiff's request for a reasonable accommodation regarding her start time was denied, and she received disciplinary actions for alleged lateness before her eventual termination. The defendant sought to dismiss the complaint. The Court denied the defendant's motion, concluding that the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded adverse employment actions and established a causal link for both her disability discrimination and retaliation claims under the ADA.

Americans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimFailure to AccommodateMotion to Dismiss DeniedAdverse Employment ActionJob Duties ModificationWorkplace HarassmentMedical LeaveBroken Wrist Injury
References
57
Case No. CV-23-0766
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Mary Daniels

Claimant Mary Daniels appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying a causally-related neck injury. Daniels, a train conductor, initially claimed work-related injuries to her right shoulder, elbow, and hand. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established claims for the shoulder and elbow but not the neck. The Board affirmed, noting Daniels did not report neck pain in her initial claim or during a hearing, despite medical experts opining on a causally-related neck injury based on her later complaints. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its credibility determinations and finding substantial evidence supported the finding that the medical opinions lacked a proper factual basis regarding the neck injury.

CausationNeck InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryRight Elbow InjuryMedical EvidenceCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewTreating PhysicianOrthopedic Surgeon
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 836 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