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. 2015 NY Slip Op 09604
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2015

Maggio v. 24 West 57 PFF, LLC

Plaintiff Joseph Maggio, a drywall installer, was injured after falling from a scaffold staircase at a premises owned by 24 West 57 APF, LLC and leased by Ana Tzarev New York, LLC (ATNY). The scaffold, constructed by Atlantic Hoist & Scaffolding, LLC, had a modified staircase with plywood covering some steps, lacking anti-slip protection and having an irregular rise. Plaintiff attributed his fall to these conditions and the presence of construction debris. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment motions from defendants 24 West and ATNY, citing outstanding discovery, and later denied renewed motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division found 24 West and ATNY justified in bringing the second motion but denied their request for summary judgment on negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims due to factual questions regarding notice of the dangerous condition. The court also denied plaintiff's untimely cross-motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, granting ATNY conditional contractual indemnification against R&R, and otherwise affirmed the decision.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Common-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationScaffold AccidentConstruction Site InjuryPremises LiabilityAppellate Procedure
References
12
Case No. ADJ4599548 (MON 0212034) ADJ1776170 (MON 0224335) ADJ1414058 (MON 0246016)
Regular
Nov 19, 2008

KRISTIAN VON RITZHOFF vs. OGDEN ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed applicant Kristian Von Ritzhoff's petitions for reconsideration because they sought review of procedural matters, not final decisions, and were therefore not subject to reconsideration. The Board also noted that one of the petitions was untimely. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings where applicant may raise issues regarding the record and discovery.

Petition for reconsiderationWCJMinutes of Hearingfraud on the courttampering with evidencemandatory settlement conferencediscovery closureReport and Recommendationunverified petitionsprocedural order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Brown v. New York City Department of Correction

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying benefits for cardiomyopathy. The claimant argued that work-related stress caused hypertension, leading to his cardiac condition, and that the manifestation of his condition at work created a presumption of work-relatedness under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1). However, this issue was not raised before the Board and thus unpreserved for review. The court noted that the presumption applies to unwitnessed or unexplained accidents, which was not the case here. An impartial cardiologist found no causal link between the claimant's work and his cardiac distress, an opinion the Board credited over contrary medical evidence. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Board was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationCardiomyopathyHypertensionWork-Related StressCausal LinkMedical EvidenceImpartial Medical ExaminationPresumptionUnpreserved IssueAppellate Review
References
7
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Richardson v. Schenectady City School District

Claimant, a health teacher for Schenectady City School District, sustained compensable head and back injuries in February 2006. In December 2008, he submitted a letter announcing his retirement effective June 2009. Subsequently, the employer and its workers’ compensation carrier sought to suspend benefits, arguing the claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the claimant had voluntarily withdrawn and denied benefits after June 24, 2009. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence, including an independent medical examination report stating the claimant was capable of modified duty work and the claimant's own testimony that his retirement was not due to disabilities.

Voluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketWorkers' Compensation BenefitsModified Duty WorkIndependent Medical ExaminationDisabilityRetirementSchenectady City School DistrictAppellate DivisionSubstantial EvidenceFactual Issue
References
4
Case No. ADJ6706991
Regular
Sep 16, 2011

MICHAEL GRAHAM vs. PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Applicant Michael Graham sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that awarded a 24% permanent disability rating for a back injury sustained on October 3, 2008. Graham argued for a higher rating based on medical reports from Dr. Chen and Dr. Roth. The WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the reasoning of the administrative law judge's report. The Board also addressed a procedural issue regarding the timeliness of its review, finding its decision to be timely due to the date of actual notice of the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityQualified Medical EvaluatorPrimary Treating PhysicianLabor Code § 5909Due ProcessActual Notice
References
2
Case No. ADJ2863431 (ANA 0399159)
Regular
Sep 17, 2008

LORA OJEDA vs. WESTMINSTER SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN \& ASSOCIATES

Defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Stipulations and Award (issued September 17, 2008) is dismissed as untimely. The petition was filed November 12, 2008, after the defendant received the award on October 6, 2008.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAwardStipulationsIndustrial InjuryRight KneeLumbar SpineCervical SpineTemporary DisabilityPermanent Disability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Landon v. Austin

In October 2008, a plaintiff sustained injuries after falling from a roof while assisting in renovations for a residence owned by the defendant. The plaintiff sued, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The defendant sought a homeowner's exemption, but the court determined that his intent to renovate for resale constituted a commercial purpose, thus precluding the exemption. The Supreme Court initially denied both the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. On appeal, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding a violation due to lack of safety equipment and the commercial nature of the work. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's cross-motion for dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, citing a factual dispute regarding the roof's slope and the applicability of 12 NYCRR 23-1.24 (a) (1) (i).

Labor LawConstruction AccidentRoofing SafetySummary JudgmentHomeowner ExemptionCommercial PurposeWorker SafetyStatutory ViolationAppellate DecisionPersonal Injury
References
23
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05584
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

Alvarado v. SC 142 W. 24 LLC

Plaintiff Angel Alvarado, injured in a slip and fall in an excavation pit, appealed an order from the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the original order. The court denied Alvarado's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, ruling that the excavation pit was not a work area contemplated by the Industrial Code. It also dismissed his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding no elevation-related risk. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims due to factual disputes. Furthermore, the court conditionally granted the defendants' third-party contractual indemnification claim against Sky Materials, the plaintiff's employer.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationIndustrial CodeExcavation PitSlip and FallAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentNegligencePremises Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Alamin v. Down Town Taxi, Inc.

Claimant, a taxi driver, sustained neck and back injuries in a February 2008 work-related motor vehicle accident. His workers' compensation claim was established. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits from February 2008 to October 2009, finding a moderate causally related disability after November 2008. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board later rescinded awards after November 20, 2008, ruling that no further causally related disability existed from that date. Claimant's subsequent request for reconsideration and/or full Board review was denied. The current court dismissed the appeals from the WCLJ's January 2013 decision and the Board's January 2014 decision due to procedural irregularities (direct appeal from WCLJ and untimely filing of notice of appeal). The court affirmed the Board’s March 2014 decision denying reconsideration, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion or act arbitrarily, as the claimant failed to present new evidence or demonstrate a material change in condition.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureDismissal of AppealReconsideration DenialCausally Related DisabilityMotor Vehicle AccidentIndependent Medical ExaminationProcedural BarAbuse of DiscretionTimeliness of Appeal
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,561 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