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
Apr 17, 1985

Kollmer v. Slater Electric, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which dismissed her causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) in an action for wrongful death. The decedent, an employee of Delta Wells Inc., was fatally injured by a backhoe on land owned by the defendant, Slater Electric, Inc. The trial court had dismissed the Labor Law claim and ruled an OSHA violation inadmissible. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment, holding that Labor Law § 241 (6) imposes a nondelegable duty on owners, irrespective of their control over the worksite, and that the plaintiff's offer of proof established a prima facie case. The court reinstated the plaintiff's causes of action and granted a new trial, but affirmed that the specific OSHA settlement was inadmissible as an admission.

Wrongful DeathLabor Law241(6)Nondelegable DutyConstruction AccidentBackhoe IncidentOSHA RegulationsPrima Facie CaseEvidence AdmissibilityNew Trial Granted
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Infrastructure Repair Service, LLC

This court opinion addresses motions concerning expert testimony and the amendment of a bill of particulars in a construction site injury case. The defendant, Infrastructure Repair Service, LLC (GC), sought to preclude the plaintiff's expert engineer, Harlan Fair, from testifying on legal conclusions regarding violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) or OSHA regulations, which the court largely granted while allowing testimony on factual matters. The plaintiff cross-moved to amend his bill of particulars to include a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.24 (d) under Labor Law § 241 (6), which was denied due to the regulation's inapplicability to the use of an open tar bucket. However, the plaintiff's cross-motion to include violations of specific OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1926.16, 1926.28, 1926.102) was granted. The court applied the multi-employer doctrine, finding the GC potentially liable for safety conditions affecting subcontractor employees, especially since the GC provided the safety equipment.

Expert WitnessMotion PracticePleadings AmendmentConstruction AccidentWorkplace InjuryLabor Law Section 241(6)Labor Law Section 200OSHA StandardsGeneral Contractor ResponsibilitySubcontractor Employees
References
65
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Linda FF.

This case involves an appeal from Family Court orders regarding a respondent's violation of supervision orders concerning her two children, Linda FF. and Charles FF. The respondent had previously consented to neglect findings for both children, who were placed in petitioner's custody, and was placed under supervision with conditions including family counseling, parenting education, and anger management. Petitioner initiated violation proceedings alleging the respondent failed to comply with these terms by missing classes and exhibiting a negative attitude, and Family Court found a willful violation, revoking the supervision orders and imposing a suspended 45-day jail term. On appeal, the respondent argued that Family Ct Act § 1072, used for enforcement, only applies to supervision orders issued under § 1054, not her orders which were likely under § 1057, but the appellate court interpreted this as legislative oversight and allowed enforcement under § 1072. The court affirmed the Family Court's determination, finding ample evidence of willful and unjustifiable violation of the supervision order terms.

Family LawChild NeglectSupervision OrderViolation ProceedingFamily Court Act § 1072Legislative OversightParenting ClassesAnger ManagementCustodyWillful Violation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haddad v. City of Albany

The petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed their application, which combined a CPLR article 78 proceeding and an action for declaratory judgment. The application challenged the respondent's denial of a request to rescind waste removal violation bills issued by the Department of General Services (DGS) of the City of Albany. The Supreme Court had found that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that claims regarding preemption of local waste ordinances by state penal law were without merit. During the pendency of the appeal, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) administratively reviewed the violations, reversing some charges and upholding others. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that a violation of the City of Albany's waste code was not a criminal violation under Penal Law § 55.10, and that the petitioner was indeed required to exhaust administrative remedies for their constitutional claims, as these claims implicated specific aspects of the administrative proceeding rather than the administrative scheme itself.

WasteManagementAdministrativeLawMunicipalCodePenalLawExhaustionOfRemediesDeclaratoryJudgmentAppellateReviewEnvironmentalViolationsPublicHealthPropertyMaintenance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kletter v. Fleming

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim alleging a violation of Labor Law article 6. The defendant, a dentist, worked for the plaintiff under a contract and, after termination, filed counterclaims for nonpayment and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law counterclaim and precluded the defendant from presenting proof for corrective work payment. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Labor Law article 6 was inapplicable as the claim was a common-law contractual remuneration claim and not a substantive violation. It also upheld the preclusion regarding payment for corrective work, citing the clear terms of the contract and the parol evidence rule, which barred extrinsic evidence of additional payment terms.

breach of contractlabor law violationwage disputecontractual remunerationparol evidence rulesummary judgmentpreclusion motionappellate reviewdentist employmentemployer-employee dispute
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gomez v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF EL PASO

Appellants Elsa Gomez and Jose Ramiro Gomez sued the Housing Authority (HACEP) and apartment manager Lupe Armstrong after their children were sexually molested at a housing project by Enrique Martinez, a non-tenant with a criminal record. They alleged HACEP's inadequate screening procedures and deliberate indifference violated their children's constitutional rights to bodily integrity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The trial court granted HACEP's plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Appellants failed to establish that Armstrong or her supervisors had final policymaking authority, identify an official municipal policy that was the 'moving force' behind the constitutional violation, or demonstrate a constitutional violation by a state actor, as the molestation was by a private individual and no special relationship imposing a duty to protect was proven.

Civil Rights Act of 187142 U.S.C. § 1983Municipal LiabilityOfficial PolicyDeliberate IndifferenceBodily IntegrityDue ProcessSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionChild Molestation
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayes v. Hayes

This case concerns an appeal from the Family Court of Saratoga County's dismissal of a petitioner's application to hold the respondent in willful violation of a child support order. The respondent, who had accumulated significant arrears and made no payments since September 1999, claimed disability due to an automobile accident but failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support his inability to pay. The Hearing Examiner erred by finding no willful violation and by sua sponte reducing the respondent's child support obligation without a cross-petition or adequate proof of changed circumstances. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granted the petitioner's application, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, concluding that a willful violation was warranted and the downward modification was improper.

Child SupportWillful ViolationSupport ArrearsDisability ClaimMedical EvidenceDownward ModificationFamily CourtAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofNonpayment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rhodes v. Bedford County, Tenn.

This case involves an action brought by employees of the Bedford County Ambulance Service against Bedford County, Tennessee, alleging violations of Sections 7 and 8 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically regarding minimum wage and overtime provisions. The dispute arose following the Supreme Court's Garcia decision, which made FLSA applicable to state and municipal employees, and subsequent Congressional amendments aimed at easing the transition for local governments. Plaintiffs argued that the county failed to pay proper minimum wage and overtime from April 15, 1986, to June 30, 1986, and that the subsequent change from salaried to hourly pay on July 1, 1986, constituted a scheme to avoid overtime requirements by artificially deflating the regular rate. The court found that the county’s failure to provide proper overtime payments was a continuous violation, thus plaintiffs’ action was not barred by the statute of limitations. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the issue of liability under Section 7 of the FLSA, finding both periods of violation. Liquidated damages were awarded for the initial period, but a question of material fact remained for the later period. The defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime CompensationMinimum Wage LawPublic Agency EmploymentMunicipal Government LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionsContinuing Violation DoctrineStatute of Limitations FLSAWage and Hour DisputeAntidiscrimination in Employment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Willard v. O-At-Ka Milk Products Cooperative

A claimant was awarded workers' compensation benefits after falling from a milk truck in 2009, suffering multiple injuries. The employer alleged the claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a by failing to disclose a 2007 motor vehicle accident and related neck pain. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found a violation, the Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded this decision, concluding no violation occurred, and remitted the case for further development on the degree of disability. The employer appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the claimant did not knowingly make a false statement, given testimony that she was not specifically asked about prior neck issues and that her previous neck soreness was minor and temporary.

Workers' CompensationFraud AllegationMisrepresentationPrior Injury DisclosureIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceNew York LawNeck InjuryDisability Assessment
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 7,375 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