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. LBO 0383984
Regular
Dec 27, 2007

PATRICK ESPOSITO vs. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the finding that Patrick Esposito's injury sustained while falling from a hotel balcony to smoke was compensable. The Board adopted the reasoning that the act of smoking fell under the "personal comfort and convenience" and "commercial traveler" doctrines, making it incidental to his employment as a flight attendant on layover. The Court found that the employee's poor decisions after being locked out did not negate the compensability of the injury.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPATRICK ESPOSITONORTHWEST AIRLINESLIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCEORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATIONworkers' compensation administrative law judgepersonal comfort and convenience doctrinecommercial traveler ruleon callper diem
References
11
Case No. 525010
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2018

Matter of Esposito v. Tutor Perini Corp.

Claimant Joseph Esposito sought workers' compensation benefits for various lung diseases, alleging causation from workplace pollutant exposure while employed by Tutor Perini Corporation. The Workers' Compensation Board initially precluded the reports and testimony of claimant's medical expert, Lester Ploss, due to non-compliance with regulations governing independent medical examination reports, specifically the failure to submit referenced documents to the Board. Ultimately, the Board found insufficient credible evidence to establish the claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the ruling. The Board credited the testimony of Dr. Monroe Karetzky, who attributed Esposito's pulmonary issues to cigarette smoking rather than his work environment, and also discredited the claimant's work history and personal smoking habits.

Workers' Compensation LawIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Evidentiary RulingsMedical Expert TestimonyCausation (Medical)Pulmonary DiseaseCredibility DeterminationsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewRegulatory Compliance
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05971
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2019

Lozada v. St. Patrick's R C Church

Plaintiff Edwin Lozada sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while installing a video surveillance system at a school owned by defendant St. Patrick's RC Church. Lozada commenced an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). He moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, but the Supreme Court denied his motion, finding triable issues of fact regarding whether the ladder was secured and if his actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that Lozada failed to establish a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to conflicting testimony about the accident.

Personal InjurySummary Judgment MotionLabor LawLadder FallProximate CauseTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyWorker InjurySafety Devices
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01458
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2022

Patrick v. Lend Lease (US) Constr. LMB, Inc.

The plaintiff, Harvel Patrick, appealed from an order denying his motion to vacate a dismissal order and restore his personal injury action to the calendar. The Supreme Court had dismissed the complaint due to the plaintiff's repeated and willful failure to comply with discovery orders and stipulations, specifically regarding the production of workers' compensation records authorizations. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the plaintiff's conduct, noting his failures occurred over an extended period without adequate explanation. The court concluded that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint and denying the plaintiff's subsequent motion.

Personal InjuryDiscovery SanctionsDismissal of ComplaintWillful and Contumacious ConductWorkers' Compensation RecordsAuthorization ComplianceAppellate ReviewDiscretionary RulingCPLR 3126 (3)Failure to Disclose
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patrick Butler General Contractor, Inc. v. Rocco

Patrick Butler General Contractor, Inc. and Patrick Butler appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted summary judgment dismissing their complaint for breach of contract. The plaintiff, a licensed home improvement contractor, was fired by the defendants during a renovation project in Nassau County. The defendants claimed the plaintiff used unlicensed subcontractors, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The appellate court dismissed Patrick Butler's appeal but reversed the order for Patrick Butler General Contractor, Inc. It ruled there was a factual dispute regarding whether the workers hired by the plaintiff were independent contractors requiring licenses or employees exempt under Nassau County Administrative Code, thereby reinstating the complaint.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentHome Improvement ContractorsUnlicensed SubcontractorsEmployee-Employer RelationshipAppellate ReviewContract DisputeNassau County Administrative CodeCPLRReinstatement of Complaint
References
9
Case No. 10-9055(CGM)
Regular Panel Decision

Hartley v. Esposito (In re Hartley)

Richard and Kara Hartley appealed a Bankruptcy Court order that granted summary judgment to Jennifer Esposito. Ms. Esposito sought to prevent the discharge of a judgment against the Hartleys' business, Hartley's Catering, Inc., from their personal bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Court found the Hartleys fraudulently concealed the dissolution of their business, thus rendering the debt non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and § 523(a)(3). The District Court, finding no clear error in the factual findings and upholding conclusions of law, affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, confirming the Hartleys' joint and several liability and the debt's exception from discharge due to fraud and lack of proper notice.

Bankruptcy LawDischargeabilityFraudulent ConcealmentCorporate DissolutionShareholder LiabilityNew York LawCreditor RightsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDebt Exception
References
16
Case No. ADJ8004482
Regular
Sep 04, 2012

SETH PATRICK LANTZ (PATRICK LANTZ), Deceased; SHANNON M. LANTZ, Individually And As Guardian Ad Litem For ZANE A. LANTZ; KODY R. LANTZ; HALEY M. FITZJERRELL, And TYLER P. LANTZ, Minors vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, Legally Uninsured, Adjusted By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to determine if Lieutenant Seth Patrick Lantz's fatal car accident during his commute arose from his employment. The WCAB found the accident did not arise out of or in the course of employment, reversing the prior decision. The Board determined the "going and coming rule" applied, as Lieutenant Lantz's extended shift and acting as watch commander did not constitute a special mission exception. Therefore, the death benefit claim was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeath BenefitsGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionCommuteIndustrial InjuryCorrectional OfficerWatch CommanderReconsiderationFindings of Fact
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Patrick H.

This case involves an appeal stemming from an order of the Family Court of Tompkins County that adjudicated Patrick H. a permanently neglected child and subsequently terminated the parental rights of the respondent. The child's initial neglect adjudication in 1991 was based on findings that the respondent exposed him to sexual abuse. During the permanent neglect proceeding initiated by the petitioner, allegations were made that diligent efforts were exerted to strengthen the parent-child relationship, but the respondent failed to plan for the child's future, notably by not completing a sex offender treatment program or admitting to prior sexual abuse. The Family Court sided with the petitioner, leading to the termination of parental rights, a decision challenged by the respondent on appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, dismissing the respondent's arguments concerning the admission of the entire case file and the petitioner's alleged failure to make diligent efforts, concluding that the respondent's own actions hindered his access to necessary treatment.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationChild WelfareDiligent EffortsSex Offender TreatmentFamily CourtAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulingsChild ProtectionTompkins County
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Erin G.

Patrick G. appealed two Family Court orders from Queens County concerning child sexual abuse against his daughter, Erin G. The initial orders found him guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree and directed him to stay away from Erin until her eighteenth birthday. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal concerning the first order as superseded. The court affirmed the dispositional order, allowing for future applications for supervised visitation. The decision affirmed the Family Court's finding of abuse, concluding that Erin G.'s sworn in-camera testimony, demonstration with anatomically correct dolls, and expert validation sufficiently corroborated her out-of-court statements. The appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and undue harshness of the protective order were rejected.

Child protective servicesSexual abuseChild testimonyCorroborationIneffective assistance of counselOrder of protectionFamily Court ActAppellate reviewExpert witnessAnatomically correct dolls
References
11
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04791
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2023

Walsh v. Kenny

The plaintiff, Patrick Walsh, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted summary judgment to the defendant, Edward Kenny, dismissing Walsh's causes of action for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). Walsh was injured while performing carpentry work on Kenny's backyard deck. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court's order. The Court found that Kenny failed to establish, prima facie, that he did not direct or control Walsh's work, which is required for the homeowner's exemption under Labor Law § 241 (6) to apply. Similarly, Kenny failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding his authority to supervise or control the work, precluding summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims.

Personal injurysummary judgmenthomeowner's exemptionLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)safe place to workmeans and methodsproperty owner liabilityconstruction workerappellate review
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 136 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