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

Tanzman v. Tanzman

This matrimonial action addresses the equitable distribution of marital property, specifically the valuation of the plaintiff attorney's contingent personal injury cases. While parties agreed on maintenance and other asset divisions, the method for valuing 146 pending personal injury cases was disputed. The court evaluated whether overhead expenses should reduce the defendant's share of recovered fees and if maintenance required adjustment due to fee recovery. The court ruled against deducting overhead from the defendant's share and mandated a maintenance reduction to prevent 'double-dipping'. Ultimately, a progressive percentage-based valuation method for contingent fee cases, aligning with the defendant's expert's suggestions, was adopted, assigning initial value at case inception and increasing percentages as cases progress.

Matrimonial ActionEquitable DistributionContingent FeesProfessional License ValuationMaintenanceDouble DippingOverhead ExpensesAttorney CompensationCase ValuationPersonal Injury Cases
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long v. Overhead Door Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board moved to dismiss an appeal lodged by an employer and its carrier against a board decision dated April 25, 1980. This board decision had rescinded a referee's prior dismissal of a claimant's contact dermatitis claim for untimely filing and reopened the case. The employer and carrier contended the board erred by reopening as the claimant failed to seek timely review. The court determined that the claimant's application was for reopening and reconsideration, falling within the board's broad continuing jurisdiction, not an application for review under section 23. Therefore, the court granted the board's motion, dismissing the appeal on the grounds that the board's decision to reopen was nonfinal and the appellants' legal arguments lacked merit.

Workers' Compensation LawAppeal DismissalNonfinal DecisionBoard ReviewReopening CaseReconsiderationTimely FilingContinuing JurisdictionContact DermatitisJudicial Panel
References
3
Case No. ADJ3792740 (OAK 0325116)
Regular
Dec 12, 2008

BONNIE REDDRICK vs. TENET/DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER

This case concerns an award of appellate costs to the applicant's attorney. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for the determination of these costs following the denial of the defendant's petition for review. The Appeals Board awarded $152.21 in costs, representing verifiable delivery expenses, as in-house copying, mailing, and labor costs are considered overhead and not recoverable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewAppellate CostsLabor Code § 5811Johnson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Supreme Court of CaliforniaItemized CostsDelivery CostsMailing CostsCopying Costs
References
4
Case No. SAL 0110733
Regular
Jul 23, 2007

SYLVIA HERNANDEZ vs. SOQUEL NURSERY GROWERS, FRONTIER INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the arbitrator's decision that State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) owed Frontier Insurance Company contribution for bill review and loss conversion payments. The Board found insufficient evidence to determine the compensability of these expenses as overhead, remanding the matter for further proceedings. However, the Board upheld the arbitrator's decision regarding reimbursement for chiropractic treatment, finding no error on that issue.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardArbitratorContributionBill Review ChargesLoss Conversion PaymentsChiropractic TreatmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorCumulative Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 1973

Seiger v. Port of New York Authority

Plaintiff Frank Seiger was injured when a heavy plank fell from above, striking the plank he was kneeling on and causing him to fall three stories. The court examined defendants' compliance with Labor Law § 241-a, which mandates planking at specific levels in elevator shaftways during construction. The defendants were found to have violated the statute by not having planking one story below the plaintiff and by having overhead planking three stories above. The court emphasized a liberal construction of labor laws to protect workers and upheld the trial court's judgment finding the defendants liable.

workplace injuryconstruction accidentLabor Law violationstatutory interpretationplanking requirementselevator shaft safetyabsolute liabilityworker safetynegligencefalling hazard
References
4
Case No. 157330/21, Appeal No. 5768, Case No. 2025-01942
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2026

Venegas v. CPC Norfolk Senior Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

Plaintiff Henry Venegas was injured by a metal locking device, known as a "super plate" or "butterfly," which fell from overhead and struck him at a construction site. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability for his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and denied defendants' motion to dismiss his Labor Law § 241(6) claim. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this order. The court found that the absence of protective devices was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury and that defendants failed to raise a triable issue regarding the securing of the super plate or the credibility of plaintiff's account.

falling objectconstruction accidentLabor Lawsummary judgmentoverhead protectionproximate causeAppellate Division First Departmentpremises liabilityconstruction safetyworkplace injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chapman v. IBM Corp.

Plaintiff, a houseman employed by Marriott, was injured at a country club in Broome County while attempting to fix an overhead basketball backboard from a personnel lift. The backboard dislodged, striking and pinning him. Plaintiff commenced an action alleging causes of action under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241. The Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, determining plaintiff was involved in routine maintenance not covered by the Labor Law. The appellate court affirmed, concluding plaintiff was not within the class of people Labor Law § 240 (1) was enacted to protect and was engaged in routine maintenance, not repair work.

Workers' CompensationLabor LawSection 240(1)Routine MaintenanceConstruction WorkRenovationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryFall from Height
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2013

Wolfe v. Wayne-Dalton Corp.

A warehouse manager sustained injuries after falling from a safety ladder while attempting to repair an overhead door. The plaintiff initiated an action against the warehouse owners, including Joanne Leska and Robert Tarson, Jr., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability. However, the appellate court modified this decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an elevation-related risk as required by the statute, thus denying the motion except for the dismissal of a specific affirmative defense. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendants' motion for leave to renew.

Labor Law § 240 (1) ClaimWorkers' Compensation ImmunitySummary Judgment MotionElevation-Related RiskRepair vs. Routine MaintenanceAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury LiabilityLadder FallPremises Owner LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2008

Clarke v. Morgan Contracting Corp.

Plaintiff, a carpenter, was injured on a construction project when metal stud beams fell on him from a sidewalk bridge. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision. The plaintiff successfully argued inadequate safety devices contributed to his injuries, not solely his own actions. A material question of fact remains regarding the applicability of Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (a) (1) to the accident scene and the adequacy of overhead protection provided by the sidewalk bridge.

Construction AccidentFalling ObjectsSummary JudgmentLabor LawWorkplace SafetyStatutory ViolationAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryLiabilityIndustrial Code
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pato v. Sweeney Steel Service Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Buffalo Labor Temp, suffered the loss of his right arm due to an overhead crane accident in a building leased by the defendant. He sued the defendant for negligent supervision, failure to warn, and failure to provide a safe workplace, arguing he was not their employee. The defendant counter-argued that the plaintiff was their special employee, making workers' compensation his exclusive remedy. The jury found the plaintiff was not a special employee, the defendant breached its duty to provide a safe workplace, and this breach proximately caused the injuries. The jury also found the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment and order, finding sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

NegligenceSpecial EmploymentSafe Workplace DutyWorkers' Compensation Exclusive RemedyJury VerdictAppellate AffirmanceWorkplace AccidentCrane InjuryErie County CourtLabor Law
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 37 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