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. ADJ2580958 (MON 0351589)
Regular
Feb 16, 2016

ESTRELLA LOPEZ vs. OUTRIGGER LOGGING SERVICES, dba THE CRACIELA BURBANK, WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an award of 100% permanent total disability. The Board found that the medical opinions supporting the award were not substantial evidence because they failed to consider the latest orthopedic report which identified some complaints as non-industrial. Furthermore, the vocational expert's report was deficient as it relied on inadmissible rheumatology reports and did not account for the orthopedic findings. Consequently, the award was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to develop the record.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPetition to ReopenNew and Further DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityIndustrial InjuryPsycheBack
References
0
Case No. ADJ4238124 (LBO 0384459)
Regular
Sep 14, 2012

LUIS ROMERO vs. CEDARS SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision granting the defendant employer a $2,000,000 credit against future workers' compensation liability, representing the applicant's net recovery from a third-party lawsuit. The applicant's petition for reconsideration, arguing employer negligence, was denied. The Board found the applicant failed to prove employer negligence, particularly by not presenting expert evidence on the standard of care or causation. Testimony indicated the applicant was aware of and instructed to use safety equipment (outriggers) but proceeded without it, suggesting applicant's own negligence.

Third-party creditEmployer negligenceCivil lawsuit recoveryManlift operationOutriggersProximate causeStandard of careComparative negligenceWCAB reconsiderationFindings of Fact
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halkias v. Hamburg Central School District

Plaintiff was injured in a fall from a snorkel ladder while painting at a worksite owned by the defendant. Despite the employer providing a scaffold, the plaintiff used the defendant's ladder, which lacked its outriggers. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1). However, the appellate court reversed this decision, granting the plaintiff's motion. The court ruled that the plaintiff demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment, emphasizing that the availability of alternative safety devices or the unwitnessed nature of the accident did not negate the owner's liability for failing to provide proper protection.

Fall from HeightSnorkel Ladder AccidentScaffold SafetyLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReversalWorksite SafetyOwner LiabilityProximate CauseSafety Devices
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mosher v. County of Rensselaer

The plaintiff was injured on a construction site when an outrigger, loosened by a co-worker, struck his face. He subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) against the building owner and contractors. Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the injury was not elevation-related. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the court modified the order, dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim as the injury was not caused by a falling object from an elevation, but affirmed the denial regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence due to unestablished lack of notice regarding scaffold defects.

Construction AccidentScaffolding InjuryLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment MotionElevation HazardFalling ObjectSafe WorkplaceCommon-Law NegligenceAppellate Court DecisionThird-Party Action
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aruck v. Xerox Corp.

Plaintiff Joseph Aruck, a laborer for John B. Pike & Son, Inc., was injured while working on a mobile scissors scaffold at a Xerox Corporation construction site when the scaffold swayed, causing him to fall on its platform. Aruck sought partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) and (3), arguing violations related to scaffold safety. The court addressed the novel question of whether a worker falling on a scaffold, rather than from it, is covered by Labor Law § 240 (1), which protects against risks associated with elevated worksites. Despite conflicting Appellate Division interpretations, the court found the facts, including the inherent instability of the scaffold, placed the case within the scope of § 240 (1) protections. Consequently, partial summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), but summary judgment on the § 240 (3) claim was denied due to a factual dispute regarding a broken outrigger.

Scaffolding AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 240 (3)Elevated Worksite SafetyWorker Fall ProtectionMobile Scaffold SwayConstruction Site LiabilityProximate Cause AnalysisSummary Judgment MotionStatutory Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salzler v. New York Telephone Co.

Plaintiff Richard Salzler, a Village of Arcade employee, suffered injuries when the aerial basket truck he was working from rolled downhill due to a defective emergency brake and prematurely retracted outriggers. Salzler, who had just installed a transformer on a jointly owned utility pole, was thrown 12 feet to the ground. The Supreme Court granted Salzler partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, holding defendant New York Telephone Company, a pole owner, absolutely liable for failing to provide proper safety devices. The court also denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, categorizing it as construction work. However, the Appellate Court found that the Supreme Court should have dismissed the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, as the defendant lacked supervisory control over the plaintiff's work. The order was modified to grant partial summary judgment to the defendant on these two causes of action, while affirming the other rulings.

Construction AccidentWorkplace InjuryElevation HazardDefective EquipmentSafety DevicesAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentLabor LawNon-delegable DutyAppellate Review
References
16
Showing 1-6 of 6 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