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

Slesin v. Administrator, Occupational Safety & Health Administration

Louis Slesin filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking documents from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the regulation of nonionizing radiation. OSHA released some documents but withheld portions of others, citing Exemption 5 of FOIA. Slesin cross-moved for an in camera inspection of the redactions and for summary judgment. District Judge Leval denied Slesin's cross-motion and granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court found that the redacted materials, which included staff opinions, recommendations, and internal timetables related to OSHA's deliberative process for developing new health standards, were properly withheld under Exemption 5, which protects internal agency communications reflecting deliberative or policy-making processes. The judge concluded that OSHA had adequately demonstrated that the excised material fell within the lawful exemption.

FOIAExemption 5Deliberative Process PrivilegeSummary JudgmentOccupational Safety and Health AdministrationNonionizing RadiationRegulatory StandardsAgency DeliberationsInformation DisclosureGovernment Transparency
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sabine Consolidated, Inc. v. State

This case addresses whether the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) preempts state criminal prosecution for criminally negligent homicide. Appellants Tantillo and Sabine Consolidated, Inc. were convicted in Texas after two employees died in a trench collapse, but the Court of Appeals reversed, citing OSHA preemption. This court examined express, implied, and conflict preemption doctrines. It concluded that OSHA does not preempt state criminal laws, as the federal act primarily aims to prevent workplace hazards, while state criminal statutes punish unlawful acts. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for consideration of remaining points of error.

OSHA preemptioncriminal negligent homicideworkplace safetystate criminal lawfederal preemptiontrench collapseemployee deathTexas Penal CodeOccupational Safety and Health ActSupremacy Clause
References
20
Case No. M2019-01860-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2020

Jeffrey Clay Davis v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center

A medical center employee sued for retaliatory discharge under the Tennessee Public Protection Act, alleging termination for refusing to remain silent about the medical center's failure to implement workplace violence policies in compliance with OSHA guidelines. The trial court initially granted the medical center's motion to dismiss, asserting that OSHA guidelines were non-mandatory and did not constitute 'illegal activity.' However, the Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal. The appellate court found that the employee's complaint sufficiently alleged a violation of OSHA's general duty clause, which applies even in the absence of specific regulations, and implicated important public policy concerns regarding workplace safety. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

WhistleblowerRetaliatory DischargeWorkplace ViolenceOSHA General Duty ClausePublic PolicyEmployment LawOccupational Safety and Health ActTennessee Public Protection ActEmployer LiabilityWorker Safety
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 1990

People v. Pymm

This case examines whether federal regulation of workplace safety under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) preempts New York State's authority to criminally prosecute employers for conduct that results in unsafe working conditions. The corporate defendants, Pymm Thermometer Corporation and Pak Glass Machinery Corporation, along with their executives William Pymm and Edward Pymm, Jr., were convicted of various criminal charges, including conspiracy, assault, and reckless endangerment, stemming from severe mercury contamination at their Brooklyn facilities which caused neurological damage to an employee. The Trial Justice initially set aside the verdict, citing federal preemption, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's ruling, concluding that OSHA does not expressly or impliedly preempt state criminal prosecutions for employer conduct, emphasizing that state criminal laws serve distinct purposes of punishment and deterrence beyond OSHA's regulatory standards.

PreemptionOSHAWorkplace SafetyCriminal ProsecutionMercury PoisoningEmployer LiabilityState LawFederal LawHazardous ConditionsCorporate Crime
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 1999

Forde v. Columbus McKinnon Corp.

The defendant Markey Industrial Supply, Inc., appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied its motion for summary judgment. The case involves a plaintiff who sustained severe injuries on January 10, 1995, when machinery fell from a defective hoist lacking a safety latch, while working for Consolidated Edison. Markey Industrial Supply, Inc. had a contract with Consolidated Edison to service and inspect hoists according to OSHA regulations. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that Markey's contractual duties included OSHA-compliant inspections, making them potentially liable for negligence.

Personal InjurySummary Judgment DenialNegligenceContractual LiabilityWorkplace AccidentDefective EquipmentHoistOSHA ComplianceAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
4
Case No. ADJ8349042
Regular
Nov 25, 2019

CARLOS REYES vs. PALM DESERT DOORS AND HARDWARE, PRAETORIAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to review a WCJ's finding that the employer did not engage in serious and willful misconduct. The WCAB rescinded the original decision, finding material factual discrepancies between the WCJ's findings and the evidence, particularly regarding the necessity of gloves and the feasibility of using a safety guard. The case is remanded for further proceedings, including allowing the applicant to amend their petition to include theories based on OSHA violations and presenting arguments and evidence on that issue. The WCAB also clarified that failure to specifically plead OSHA violations in the pretrial conference statement does not constitute a waiver of the right to raise such issues.

Serious and Willful MisconductLabor Code section 4553Occupational Safety and HealthCal/OSHAWCJFindings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and Releasetable sawsafety guard
References
0
Case No. 04-12-00712-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2013

Tomas Perez v. Smart Corporation, Inc. D/B/A Smart Companies, Inc.

Tomas Perez sued Smart Corporation for negligence after falling from a ladder while painting a building, sustaining permanently disabling injuries. A jury found Smart 45% responsible and Perez 55% responsible, leading to a take-nothing judgment against Perez due to comparative negligence rules. Perez appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly admitted an OSHA investigation file which found no violations by Smart. The appellate court agreed that admitting the OSHA file was an error but deemed it harmless, concluding that ample other evidence supported the jury's finding of greater responsibility on Perez's part. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

NegligenceComparative NegligenceOSHA RegulationsEvidentiary RulingHarm AnalysisLadder SafetySubcontractor LiabilityFall ProtectionExpert TestimonyJury Verdict
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeDivitis v. International Business Machines Corp.

Plaintiff, a former New York Telephone Company employee, developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome from using a keyboard manufactured by the defendant. She initiated legal action against the defendant, alleging negligence and strict product liability. The plaintiff sought discovery of workers' compensation claims and OSHA 200 logs related to repetitive motion injuries caused by the defendant's keyboards. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's discovery motion and granted the defendant's protective order. On appeal, the court modified the Supreme Court's order, partially granting the plaintiff's motion and allowing limited discovery of relevant workers' compensation records and OSHA 200 logs, subject to specific conditions and redactions.

Product LiabilityNegligenceDiscovery DisputeWorkers' Compensation RecordsOSHA 200 LogsRepetitive Motion InjuryCarpal Tunnel SyndromeKeyboard InjuryEvidence AdmissibilityScope of Discovery
References
13
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00002 [146 AD3d 401]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 2017

Anderson v. MSG Holdings, L.P.

Plaintiff, an iron worker, fell from a concrete panel while installing stadium seating at Madison Square Garden, suffering injuries. He alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), claiming he was not provided with proper fall protection. Defendants argued plaintiff was the sole proximate cause for not tying off his harness, despite being instructed to comply with OSHA subpart M. The court found that plaintiff was not provided an appropriate tie-off point, as the only available options were below his feet, which is inconsistent with OSHA regulations. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, granting plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability for both Labor Law claims, as plaintiff's failure to use an inadequate tie-off point could not be the sole proximate cause.

Fall ProtectionLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.16(b)Construction Site SafetySummary Judgment MotionProximate Cause DefenseOSHA ComplianceIronworker InjuryNew York Appellate Division
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

Daniel Pantoja Garcia appealed a directed verdict in a wrongful death case against Norfolk Southern Railway Company. His wife, Lydia Garcia, an employee of Progress Rail, died in an explosion while torch-cutting a fuel tank on Norfolk Southern's property. Garcia alleged Norfolk Southern was negligent, citing failure to warn, failure to discharge an assumed duty to clean the tank, and failure to comply with OSHA regulations. The trial court granted a directed verdict, finding no duty owed by Norfolk Southern. The appellate court affirmed, concluding there was no evidence Norfolk Southern assumed a duty to clean the tank, lacked superior knowledge of the hazard, or violated OSHA regulations given the contractors' awareness of the fuel.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceDirected VerdictAssumption of DutyDuty to WarnOSHA RegulationsNegligence Per SeFlammable MaterialsRailroad IndustryExplosion Accident
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 67 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