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. 2019 NY Slip Op 01046 [169 AD3d 747]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2019

Barrios v. 19-19 24th Ave. Co., LLC

The plaintiff, Sergio Barrios, sustained personal injuries when a differential block and chain fell on his head while preparing a hoisting apparatus at the defendants' premises. He sued 19-19 24th Avenue Company, LLC, et al., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied both parties' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order. It granted the plaintiff summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the repair work fell under its purview. It also granted the defendants summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, ruling that the plaintiff's work did not constitute construction, demolition, or excavation.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffolding LawGravity HazardSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRepair WorkHoisting ApparatusWorkplace SafetyStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Case No. 2012 NY Slip Op 31770OJ
Regular Panel Decision

Floyd v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued judgments annulling mayoral personnel orders No. 2012/1 and 2012/2, dated April 11, 2012. These orders reclassified ungraded civil service titles, subject to prevailing wage bargaining under Labor Law § 220, to graded workers under the New York City Collective Bargaining Law. The annulment was affirmed because the City failed to comply with Civil Service Law § 20, which mandates notice, a public hearing, and State Civil Service Commission approval for such reclassifications. The concurring justices were Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, DeGrasse, Freedman, and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

annulmentmayoral orderscivil serviceprevailing wagecollective bargaininglabor lawcivil service lawreclassificationpublic hearingstate civil service commission
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Holley v. Syracuse Utilities

A claimant sustained a left knee injury in June 2001 and received workers' compensation benefits, including a 25% schedule loss of use in 2003. No further benefits were paid until June 2012, when a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits for missed work between August and October 2008, credited against the prior schedule loss of use award. In October 2012, the employer's carrier requested a transfer of liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied this request as premature. The Appellate Court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the last payment of compensation occurred in June 2012, thus the statutory three-year period for transferring liability had not been met.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability TransferSchedule Loss of UseLast Payment of CompensationCredit for OverpaymentStatutory InterpretationAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation BoardPremature Application
References
4
Case No. 2012 NY Slip Op 32612CU
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2012

Keenan v. Simon Property Group, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Proper Construction, was injured when he fell from a ladder while installing vinyl lining in a storefront window frame during a renovation project at an Art of Shaving store, owned by RPT. The ladder was unstable due to debris in the confined work area, preventing its proper use, and had spikes on its steps that caused the plaintiff to lose his balance and fall. Initially, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. However, the appellate court modified the order, granting the plaintiff's motion against RPT and Art of Shaving. The claims against Alert Glass, a subcontractor, were dismissed as it lacked control over the work site and was not a statutory agent.

Ladder FallConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationVicarious LiabilityWorkplace SafetyElevation HazardInadequate Safety DeviceSubcontractor Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schwartz v. State Insurance Fund

Claimant appealed two Workers' Compensation Board decisions. The first decision, filed April 25, 2012, ruled that her alleged cardiac conditions were not causally related to her established work-related stress claim. The second decision, filed May 2, 2012, denied her payment for intermittent lost time. The court affirmed both decisions, finding that the employer's independent medical examiner complied with Workers' Compensation Law § 137, and the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions regarding cardiac conditions was supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the Board's determination that the claimant's Friday absences were for convenience, not disability, was also upheld by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board AppealsCausally Related DisabilityCardiac ConditionsHypertensionMitral Valve InsufficiencyTricuspid Valve InsufficiencyEnlarged Left AtriumWork-Related StressAdjustment DisorderIntermittent Lost Time Benefits
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2007

Lago v. City of New York-Workers' Compensation Division

This case involves an appeal by the City of New York-Workers’ Compensation Division from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County. The first order, dated October 19, 2007, denied the City's motion to vacate a prior order approving the petitioner's settlement of a personal injury action. The second order, dated January 22, 2008, denied the City's motion for leave to reargue. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the January 22, 2008 order, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument. The order dated October 19, 2007 was affirmed, with the court finding that the City failed to demonstrate the merit of its position for relief under CPLR 5015 (a) (1).

Settlement ApprovalPersonal Injury ActionAppeal from OrderMotion to VacateReargument MotionCPLR 5015(a)(1)Judicial ReviewAffirmed DecisionDismissed AppealProcedural Issues
References
1
Case No. ADJ7884570
Regular
Jan 04, 2013

DANIELE MALOSSI vs. FDC MANAGEMENT, IMPERIUM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The applicant failed to file the petition within the mandatory 25-day window after service of the Findings and Order. The Board found no evidence the petition was received by the WCAB by the October 19, 2012 deadline, despite the applicant's claim of mailing it earlier. The applicant may still file a new petition if they can prove timely receipt by the WCAB.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictionalFiling DateReceipt DateWCABWCJEAMSSupplemental PetitionDismissal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Bunn v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

The claimant, a mechanic, was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in December 2009. In August 2012, a doctor determined that his condition was causally related to his employment, leading him to file for workers' compensation benefits in October 2012. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found the claim time-barred, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this, setting the disablement date as August 7, 2012, and establishing the claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the claimant's application was timely filed as he knew or should have known of the causal relationship on August 7, 2012.

occupational diseasecarpal tunnel syndrometimely filingdate of disablementmedical opinioncausal relationshipemployer liabilityappellate reviewsubstantial evidenceworkers compensation benefits
References
5
Case No. ADJ4112217 (ANA 0344909)
Regular
Dec 17, 2012

ANGEL MARTINEZ vs. KELLY SERVICES; CNA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Angel Martinez's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on October 25, 2012, significantly after Martinez admits having notice of the WCJ's March 8, 2012, Findings and Award on July 5, 2012. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be filed within twenty days of notice, with limited extensions for mailing. This jurisdictional deadline was not met, thus precluding the Board from granting the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedLabor Code section 5903WCAB Rule 10507JurisdictionalFindings and AwardNoticeWCJ's decisionADJ4112217
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2014

Matter of Haynes v. Catholic Charities

The claimant, a caseworker, sought workers' compensation benefits in October 2012 for a psychological injury sustained from a client assault. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge established the claim, which the Board affirmed. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7), asserting the injury resulted from lawful personnel decisions (warning letters). However, the Board determined that while an April 2012 disciplinary action was partially lawful, a July 2012 warning lacked good faith. Evidence, including testimony from a licensed clinical social worker, indicated the claimant had been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder prior to the warning letters, stemming from work-related stress and a client assault. Additionally, disparaging remarks made by the claimant's supervisors regarding her condition were credited. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence that the claim was not barred by WCL § 2 (7) and that the claimant's stress was greater than that of similarly situated workers.

Psychological InjuryPosttraumatic Stress DisorderWork-Related StressClient AssaultWarning LettersPersonnel DecisionGood FaithCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Law
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,475 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