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. 2023 NY Slip Op 00466
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2023

Matter of Kennedy v. 3rd Track Constructors

Claimant Alastair Kennedy, an operating engineer, sustained work-related injuries in October 2019 after falling into a hole at a job site, filing for workers' compensation benefits for left shoulder, foot, and ankle injuries. The employer's carrier accepted the claim for foot and ankle but contested neck and left shoulder injuries, also raising a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board found claimant's testimony regarding the accident and prior injuries not credible, denying the claims for neck and left shoulder injuries and imposing mandatory and discretionary penalties under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's findings regarding the non-causal relation of neck and left shoulder injuries and the mandatory penalty for misrepresentations. However, the Court reversed the discretionary penalty of total disqualification from future wage loss benefits, deeming it disproportionate to the offense, modifying and affirming the Board's decision as so modified.

Workers' CompensationInjury ClaimCredibility AssessmentMisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-a ViolationMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyWage Loss BenefitsCausal RelationshipMedical Evidence
References
16
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
Case No. 533556
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Alastair Kennedy

Claimant, an operating engineer, sustained work-related injuries in October 2019 after falling into a hole at a job site. He initially filed for workers' compensation benefits, which were accepted for left foot and ankle injuries. He later alleged neck and left shoulder injuries, which the carrier contested, also raising a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation due to alleged misrepresentations. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found claimant's testimony not credible regarding the accident and prior injuries, disallowed the neck and shoulder claims, and imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties under § 114-a. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these findings. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision to disallow the claims for neck and shoulder injuries and upheld the mandatory penalty for misrepresentation, finding it supported by substantial evidence. However, the Court reversed the imposition of the discretionary penalty of total disqualification from future wage loss benefits, deeming it disproportionate to the offense, thereby modifying the Board's decision.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsCausally-Related InjuriesCredibility DeterminationMisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyWage Loss BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Renz v. Home Depot USA, Inc.

Claimant, an employee of Home Depot USA, Inc., sustained injuries in 2005. Initially, a left shoulder injury was found, later amended to include a right shoulder and a potential neck injury, prompting diagnostic tests. Subsequently, claimant stipulated to a schedule loss of use for her arms, explicitly denying other body parts, leading to a May 2007 decision awarding benefits and closing the case. Despite this, claimant sought to reopen the claim for her neck and other injuries, but both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied the request, finding the neck claim barred by the prior stipulation due to a lack of forthrightness regarding her neck condition. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the Board rationally found the stipulation binding, especially considering medical guidelines and evidence that the neck was symptomatic before the agreement, thus also precluding related carpal tunnel syndrome claims.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseNeck InjuryStipulationReopening ClaimCarpal Tunnel SyndromeCredibilityMedical GuidelinesAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Knisell v. Treasure Chest Advertising Co.

Claimant sustained a work-related injury on October 12, 1999. Initially reporting an injury to her left arm, she later experienced neck pain and sought workers' compensation benefits for injury to her left arm, shoulder, and neck. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially barred the neck injury claim due to a failure to provide timely notice to the employer under Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that the employer was aware of the neck, arm, and shoulder injury on the date of the accident. The employer appealed the Board's reversal. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's conclusion of employer awareness was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Workers' CompensationNotice RequirementCausally Related InjuryNeck InjuryShoulder InjuryArm InjurySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard ReversalEmployer Knowledge
References
1
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05517
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2024

Matter of Daniels v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Mary Daniels, a train conductor, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging work-related injuries to her right shoulder, right elbow, and right hand from a March 4, 2022 incident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found prima facie medical evidence for injuries including her neck, but ultimately established the claim only for the shoulder and elbow, finding no causally-related neck injury. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this determination. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that while treating physicians opined on a causally-related neck injury, the claimant herself did not report neck pain in her initial claim or job injury report and denied it during the hearing, thereby undermining the factual basis for the medical opinions.

Workers' CompensationCausationNeck InjuryShoulder InjuryElbow InjuryCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewTreating PhysicianOrthopedic Surgeon
References
5
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. GOL 0090661
Regular
Jul 26, 2007

JESUS LOBATO vs. FOARM FOLLOWING FUNCTION, INC., VIRGINIA SURETY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The applicant argued that their neck and left shoulder were injured as a consequence of an admitted industrial injury to their psyche and left hand, and that the permanent disability rating was underestimated. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the applicant's neck and shoulder injuries were a compensable consequence of the original injury. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the extent of permanent disability and attorney's fees.

Compensable consequencepsyche injuryleft hand injurymuscle strain/sprainneck injuryleft shoulder injurypermanent disabilityvocational expertrating instructionssubstantial evidence
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,201 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