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. 2021 NY Slip Op 01738 [192 AD3d 953]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2021

Andres v. North 10 Project, LLC

The plaintiff, Mieczyslaw Andres, commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained when an electrical panel box he was removing fell and struck him. He appealed from an order denying his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against defendants North 10 Project, LLC, and HSD Construction, LLC. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the electrical panel box was an object requiring securing under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary Judgment MotionFalling Object DoctrineAppellate DivisionLiabilityConstruction Site SafetyStatutory InterpretationWorkers' RightsPremises Liability
References
7
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01287 [214 AD3d 785]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2023

Mora v. 1-10 Bush Term. Owner, L.P.

John Mora, an injured plaintiff, along with his wife, sued 1-10 Bush Terminal Owner, L.P. after he fell from a ladder during demolition work, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendant appealed this decision, challenging the grant of summary judgment. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentDemolition WorkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240 (1)Proximate CauseNondelegable DutyElevated Work SitesSafety Devices
References
15
Case No. ADJ1448881 (VNO 0460995), ADJ1459734 (VNO 0385398)
Regular
Jan 19, 2011

CLEMENTE MEJIA vs. PACIFIC MAT, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CIGA for FREMONT

The Appeals Board admitted Dr. Capen's November 10, 2009 report into evidence and affirmed the WCJ's Amended Joint Findings and Award. SCIF's petition for reconsideration primarily argued that Dr. Capen's report was not substantial evidence for apportionment, but the Board found SCIF waived this argument by not raising it explicitly. The majority concluded Dr. Capen's November 10, 2009 report provided substantial evidence for apportionment, affirming the WCJ's findings. One Commissioner dissented, finding the report was not substantial evidence and that further development of the record was needed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAmended Joint Findings and AwardWCJindustrial injurypermanent disabilityapportionmentState Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF)CIGAliquidationCambridge
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2006

Whitmore v. Carrier Corp.

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in November 1999 and returned to light duty until August 2002, when a congestive heart condition forced him to stop working. He was found to have a permanent marked partial disability for his back as of October 14, 2002, and sought wage loss benefits. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board determined that his reduced earnings were due to his heart condition, not the compensable back injury. The Board affirmed this decision on April 10, 2006. Claimant's subsequent appeal was dismissed as untimely because the notice of appeal was submitted late.

Reduced EarningsCausally Related DisabilityBack InjuryHeart ConditionUntimely AppealWage Loss BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural Dismissal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trapani v. 10 Arial Way Associates

Cesare Trapani, an employee of P & W Electric, Inc., was injured at a construction site owned by 10 Arial Way Associates and managed by The Marcus Organization, Inc. Both property owner and manager sought defense and indemnification as additional insureds under an insurance policy issued by Assurance Company of America to P & W. A Judicial Hearing Officer initially found them to be additional insureds, a finding upheld by the Supreme Court which denied summary judgment to P & W and Assurance. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court determined that the work contract did not expressly or specifically require additional insured coverage, and a certificate of insurance alone was insufficient. Consequently, the motions by P & W Electric, Inc. and Assurance Company of America were granted, the cross-motions by 10 Arial Way Associates and The Marcus Organization, Inc. were denied, and a judgment was entered declaring that the latter are not entitled to insurance coverage as additional insureds.

Additional InsuredInsurance PolicyContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentConstruction Site InjuryThird-Party LiabilityCertificate of Insurance ValidityWork ContractAppellate Procedure
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Water Tunnel Contractors

A motion was filed seeking to compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept two notices of appeal, dated July 10, 1978, and September 22, 1978. The court partially granted the motion, directing the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept the notice of appeal dated July 10, 1978. However, the motion was denied with respect to the notice of appeal dated September 22, 1978. The decision was rendered without costs to either party. Justices Mahoney, Greenblott, Main, Mikoll, and Herlihy concurred with the ruling.

Motion PracticeAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionCourt OrderPartial GrantNotice of AppealLegal CostsConcurring Opinion
References
2
Case No. ADJ1308665
Regular
Jan 27, 2014

GARY STALCUP vs. BRAD JOHNSON TRUCKING, CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over the date of injury for Gary Stalcup's left knee. The defendants seek reconsideration of the WCJ's finding of injury on February 10, 1998, arguing the applicant stipulated to November 10, 1997, and that medical evidence does not support the later date. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, agreeing with the WCJ that it was equitable to set aside both stipulations (date of injury and insurance coverage) due to apparent mistakes by the parties. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision to amend the date of injury based on contemporaneous medical evidence rather than enforcing potentially erroneous stipulations.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awarddate of injurystipulationtotal temporary disabilitymedical evidencedue processcoverageWCIRB
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Messina v. Lufthansa German Airlines

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 4, 1977. Plaintiff sued Lufthansa German Airlines and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers for breach of an employment contract and sought reinstatement. The central issue revolved around the timeliness of Lufthansa's notice to extend plaintiff's probationary employment, which the Trial Term deemed untimely by applying General Construction Law § 20 to the contract's 10-day notice period. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the notice, issued on November 11, 1975, was one day late based on the calculation method. A dissenting opinion argued against the application of § 20, asserting it inappropriately curtails employer rights in probationary contracts.

Contract interpretationProbationary employmentTerminationTimeliness of noticeGeneral Construction LawAppellate reviewDissenting opinionEmployment lawUnion agreementSeniority status
References
6
Case No. ADJ8572033
Regular
Jan 23, 2017

NELLY MOLINA vs. MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By MACY'S

This case involves a lien claim by Industrial Healthcare for medical services provided to applicant Nelly Molina from November 6, 2012, to September 10, 2013. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration of an order dismissing the lien, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that the lien was untimely. The WCAB ruled that because the last date of service (September 10, 2013) was after July 1, 2013, the 18-month statute of limitations under Labor Code section 4903.5(a) applied, making the lien filed on September 2, 2015, tardy. A dissenting opinion argued that continuous services provided both before and after July 1, 2013, should be subject to the three-year statute of limitations, allowing for a single lien filing.

Labor Code section 4903.5(a)statute of limitationslien claimreconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lienworkers' compensation administrative law judgeIndustrial HealthcareInnovative Medical ManagementMacy's Corporate Servicescontinuous treatment
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01865 [170 AD3d 1349]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2019

Matter of Washington v. Human Tech.

Claimant Michael Washington appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. The first decision, filed August 10, 2017, disallowed his claim for workers' compensation benefits, ruling that his alleged injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, citing a lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in his reports. The second decision, filed November 15, 2017, denied his request for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed the appeal from the August 2017 decision as abandoned due to claimant's failure to timely perfect it. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the November 2017 decision, finding no abuse of discretion as the claimant failed to demonstrate newly discovered evidence, a material change in condition, or that the Board improperly failed to consider issues raised in his application for review.

Workers' Compensation ClaimInjury Not Arising from EmploymentCredibility DisputeNotice of InjuryFalsified DocumentAdministrative ReviewAppeal AbandonedDenial of ReconsiderationAbuse of Discretion ReviewAppellate Division
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,701 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