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

Black v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware

This negligence action involves plaintiff James Black, a forklift operator, who sustained injuries after falling through a hole in a trailer owned by Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware and leased to Freeman Decorating Company. Consolidated moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the defect. The court first addressed Black's argument for vicarious liability under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, which was rejected because the claim against Freeman was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, thus leaving nothing to impute. The court then examined Black's direct negligence claims against Consolidated, including constructive notice of the hole, negligent inspection, and inadequate lighting in the trailer. The court found Black's evidence insufficient to establish constructive notice, dismissed the negligent inspection claim due to lack of substantiation, and rejected the inadequate lighting claim as not being a substantial cause of the injuries given the forklift's headlights. Consequently, Consolidated's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Negligence actionSummary judgmentTrailer defectHole in floorWorkers' Compensation LawVehicle and Traffic Law § 388Constructive noticeNegligent inspectionInadequate lightingVicarious liability
References
23
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00112 [168 AD3d 717]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2019

Moscati v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed a personal injury case involving Michael Moscati, an excavator operator injured on a Consolidated Edison work site. Moscati's excavator slid into a creek while removing timber, leading to claims of common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), citing various Industrial Code provisions. The Supreme Court initially granted Consolidated Edison's motion for summary judgment, dismissing these claims. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, concluding that Consolidated Edison failed to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment. Specifically, Con Ed did not demonstrate a lack of notice regarding dangerous premises conditions or an absence of authority to supervise the work.

Construction accidentLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Industrial Code violationsExcavator accidentSummary judgmentPrima facie caseDangerous premises conditionSupervision and controlAppellate Division
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Antine v. City of New York

This case consolidates 13 separate 9/11-related applications seeking leave to serve late notices of claim against the City of New York. Petitioners allege exposure to toxic substances during rescue, recovery, construction, and demolition operations at Ground Zero. The court addresses significant questions regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the applicable statute of limitations under the ATSSSA (Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 2001), and the commencement of proceedings by filing. Ultimately, the court grants the petitioners' applications, allowing them to serve late notices of claim, deeming them timely served nunc pro tunc, despite jurisdictional ambiguities which are reserved for the federal court.

9/11 claimstoxic exposurelate notice of claimstatute of limitationssubject matter jurisdictionfederal preemptionGeneral Municipal LawCPLRspecial proceedingsWorld Trade Center
References
32
Case No. ADJ8580497, ADJ7925443, ADJ8847010
Regular
Sep 12, 2014

Anthony Broussard, Chenequa Phelps, William Ortiz vs. Neighborhood House Association; Zenith Insurance Company, Grossmont Family Medical Group; Zenith Insurance Company, Steigerwald Dougherty, Inc.

The Appeals Board dismissed three petitions for reconsideration filed by a lien claimant, ruling that orders quashing notices to appear are not final orders. The Board consolidated the three cases due to common issues and granted removal on its own motion. A notice of intention to impose sanctions was issued against the lien claimant and its representative for allegedly filing frivolous petitions and causing unnecessary delay. The Board found the lien claimant's interpretation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1987 regarding compelling witness appearances to be without merit and a pattern of bad-faith conduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalConsolidationPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Quashing Notice to AppearCode of Civil Procedure section 1987(b)Claims AdjusterSanctionsLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561
References
5
Case No. ADJ12226694, ADJ12414651, ADJ12414992, ADJ12414993
Significant
Jun 17, 2024

GUILLERMO GONZALEZ, et al., Applicants vs. THE BICYCLE CASINO; ARCH INDEMNITY INS. CO., administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT, et al., Defendants

The Appeals Board consolidates two cases and issues a notice of intent to impose sanctions and costs against attorney Susan Garrett and hearing representative Lance Garrett for filing petitions for reconsideration with the willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings.

Labor Code Section 5813SanctionsCostsAttorney's FeesImproper MotiveFrivolousUnnecessary DelayPetitions for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseWillful Intent
References
13
Case No. ADJ8965291; ADJ10451326; ADJ10750348; ADJ15382349; ADJ15382351; ADJ16951068; ADJ16951573; ADJ16953628; ADJ16953629; ADJ16124753; ADJ16124750; ADJ17290772; ADJ16953860
Significant

Alfredo Ledezma, et al. vs. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg, State Compensation Insurance Fund, et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board consolidates eight cases and issues a notice of intent to impose sanctions against attorney Susan Garrett and hearing representative Lance Garrett for a pattern of filing frivolous petitions for reconsideration with the intent to delay trial proceedings.

WCABen bancconsolidationsanctionscostsattorney's feesremovalreconsiderationLabor Code section 5813willful intent
References
12
Case No. ADJ13332737, ADJ15218980, ADJ12640295
Significant
Jun 17, 2024

ABEL HIDALGO, et al. vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP, permissibly self-insured, administered by SEDGWICK, et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board consolidates three cases to address sanctions against attorney Susan Garrett and hearing representative Lance Garrett for filing petitions for reconsideration with the intent to disrupt or delay trial proceedings, issuing a notice of intent to impose sanctions and costs.

En BancSanctionsCostsAttorney's FeesLabor Code 5813Willful IntentImproper MotiveFrivolousDelay TacticsPetition for Reconsideration
References
13
Case No.
Regular
Oct 29, 2009

TONY PACHECO, ANDREW ARMIJO, MARTHA MARIN, JOSE CONTRERAS, PERRY LOFTON, VITALINO AJVIX, MARTHA HERNANDEZ vs. GLOBAL WIRELESS, INC.; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CUTTING EDGE SUPPLY COMPANY; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, AVEC SERVEALL; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, GEHR INDUSTRIES, INC.; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, AMERICAN METAL RECYCLING; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STRICTLY WHOLESALE ADA KENDALL SIGN; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.

The Appeals Board issued an Order consolidating cases and a notice of intention (NIT) to impose monetary sanctions on CMS Network, Inc. and its representatives for misstatements of law. A hearing is set for November 18, 2009.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardMonetary SanctionsNotice of Intention (NIT)Petitions for ReconsiderationMisstatements of LawGood CauseHearingObjectionAttorney ServiceRecusal
References
2
Case No. ADJ8965291; ADJ10451326; ADJ10750348; ADJ15382349; ADJ15382351; ADJ16951068; ADJ16951573; ADJ16953628; ADJ16953629; ADJ16124753; ADJ16124750; ADJ17290772; ADJ16953860
En Banc
Apr 10, 2024

ALFREDO LEDEZMA, et al. vs. KAREEM CART COMMISSARY AND MFG; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board consolidates eight cases to address sanctions against attorney Susan Garrett and hearing representative Lance Garrett for a pattern of filing petitions for reconsideration to delay trials, followed by failure to appear, and issues a notice of intent to impose sanctions up to $20,000 against each.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsCostsAttorney's FeesLabor Code Section 5813En Banc DecisionOrder of ConsolidationPetitions for ReconsiderationWillful IntentImproper Motive
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Laundries Corp. v. Craft

This case involves Consolidated Laundries Corp., the petitioner, and its former employee, Craft, the respondent. Consolidated sought to enforce a restrictive covenant agreement against Craft, which prohibited him from serving former customers or engaging in the laundry business within his former route for one year after termination. Both parties were subject to collective bargaining agreements with the Amalgamated Laundry Workers Joint Board and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. Consolidated initiated arbitration, which Craft challenged on jurisdictional grounds. The case was subsequently removed to federal court. The court examined whether it had jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act or 28 U.S.C. § 1337. The court concluded that Section 301 did not apply because the dispute concerned uniquely personal rights, an individual could not invoke Section 301, and a motion to stay arbitration was not a suit for contract violation under the act. Furthermore, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337 was denied as the claim did not directly arise under an act regulating commerce like the National Labor Relations Act. Consequently, the motions to remand the proceedings to the New York Supreme Court were granted due to lack of federal jurisdiction.

Labor LawArbitrationRestrictive CovenantEmployment ContractFederal JurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementRemandDistrict Court
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 3,724 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