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. 2022 NY Slip Op 05053 [208 AD3d 818]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2022

Thorpe v. One Page Park, LLC

Lorenzo Thorpe, an employee at a construction site owned by One Page Park, LLC, sustained injuries after falling into a 14-16 foot deep pit. He commenced a personal injury action against One Page Park, LLC and A-W Coon & Sons, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. Upon reargument, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order, denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against One Page Park, LLC, citing elevation-related risk and triable issues of fact. The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law Section 240(1)Elevation-Related HazardSummary Judgment MotionReargumentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseTriable Issue of FactProperty Owner Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenman v. Page

Plaintiff George H. Greenman sustained injuries after falling from a roof while performing construction work on defendants' property. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which was denied, and defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint by the Supreme Court, Genesee County. The appellate court modified this order by denying defendants' cross-motion in part, reinstating the Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) causes of action, and granting plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court concluded that the homeowner exemption of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) did not apply to defendant John Page, a developer who rehabilitates homes for resale, despite his residence in one of the apartments of the two-family dwelling where the incident occurred. The court clarified that the exemption only extends as far as its language fairly warrants, resolving doubts in favor of the general provision. A dissenting opinion argued that the homeowner exemption should apply due to the mixed residential and commercial use of the dwelling, adhering to the principle that owners contracting work directly related to residential use, even with a commercial purpose, are shielded.

Labor LawHomeowner ExemptionConstruction AccidentRoof FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDeveloper LiabilityStatutory InterpretationWorkplace SafetyResidential Property
References
11
Case No. ADJ7605781 ADJ7605782
Regular
Dec 10, 2013

RUBEN VERDUGO vs. CAD WORKS, INC., TOWER SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, ILLINOIS MIDWEST SPRINGFIELD (TPA)

This case involves a lien claimant whose lien was dismissed for failing to pay a statutorily required activation fee. However, a federal court injunction had temporarily suspended enforcement of this fee requirement at the time of dismissal. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the dismissal order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board also admonished both parties for exceeding page limits in their filings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code section 4903.06preliminary injunctionAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJPetition for Reconsiderationrescindreturn to trial levelWCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure
References
1
Case No. ADJ647263 (MON 0206252), ADJ442715 (MON 0179484), ADJ8283867
Regular
Oct 10, 2014

SHARON HORNSBY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior award due to insufficient analysis of statute of limitations defenses raised by both the DMV and CDSS. The Board found that the trial judge did not adequately develop the record regarding when the statute of limitations began to run for the applicant's cumulative trauma and specific injury claims. Issues concerning the timeliness of claims, notice requirements, and the nature of cumulative trauma injuries require further development and adjudication at the trial level. Therefore, the case was remanded for further proceedings to address these statute of limitations issues and other arguments previously raised by the defendants.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injurycumulative traumastatute of limitationsapportionmentpermanent total disabilityspecific injurypetition to reopenjointly liablemedical treatment
References
13
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08902
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2019

Matter of Daniels v. City of Rochester

Claimant Freddie Daniels sustained a work-related knee injury in 2010. The employer, City of Rochester, sought review of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision, submitting a 10-page brief exceeding the eight-page limit set by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1) (i). The Workers' Compensation Board denied the employer's application for review due to non-compliance with the page limit. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's amended decision, finding that the regulation was unreasonable in outright rejecting an oversized brief without a clear standard for explanation or a safety valve for filing lengthier briefs, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawAppellate ProcedurePage LimitsAdministrative ReviewBoard RulesArbitrary and CapriciousRegulation InterpretationRemittalLegal BriefsCourt Rules
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2004

Foote v. Lyonsdale Energy Limited Partnership

Glenn A. Foote, Jr., an employee, sustained injuries when a wood chip stacker collapsed at the Lyonsdale Cogeneration Facility. He and his wife filed a lawsuit alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 against the facility owners (Lyonsdale Energy Limited Partnership and Moose River Energy, Inc.), the stacker designer (American Bin & Conveyor), and the procurer (Wolf & Associates). The Supreme Court partially granted summary judgment to Lyonsdale and Wolf, dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against Lyonsdale and the negligence claim against Wolf. On cross-appeals, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable as the injury resulted from the structure's collapse rather than the failure of a safety device. The court also upheld the dismissal of the negligence claim against Wolf due to the absence of a duty to the plaintiff, and found a question of fact existed regarding Lyonsdale's supervisory control, thus denying summary judgment to Lyonsdale on other claims.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentNegligenceElevated Work SiteScaffold LawWood Chip StackerDesign DefectSupervisory ControlContractual Obligation
References
19
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02554 [182 AD3d 526]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Xiaodong Lin v. McGhee

This appellate case involves a dispute between Xiaodong Lin (respondent) and David McGhee (appellant) concerning orders related to their child. The defendant father appealed several orders, including those prohibiting communication with the child except as deemed appropriate by the Wellspring Foundation, requiring him to pay 50% of treatment and education costs at Wellspring and Arch Bridge, limiting his parental access, and mandating payment for a supervised visitation social worker. The Appellate Division modified the February 10, 2017 order, deleting the provision requiring the father to pay 50% of the child's treatment and education costs, and remanded for a hearing to determine its warrantability due to a lack of showing of changed financial circumstances. All other orders, including those limiting parental access and requiring payment for supervised visitation, were affirmed. The court found the father's arguments regarding termination of parental rights, lack of evidentiary hearing, and maternal alienation unavailing.

Parental RightsChild CustodyParental AccessFinancial ContributionResidential TreatmentSpecial Education CostsSupervised VisitationAppellate ReviewDue ProcessEvidentiary Hearing
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fourth Branch Associates v. Department of Environmental Conservation

Petitioners Joseph Harris and Fourth Branch Associates initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)'s issuance of a 'Notice of Complete Application and Determination of No Significance' and a '401 Water Quality Certificate' for a proposed hydroelectric project by ENERCO Corporation and Adirondack Hydro Development Corporation (AHDC). Petitioners contended that NYSDEC violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not requiring an environmental assessment form, an environmental impact statement, or public hearings. AHDC argued federal preemption by the Federal Power Act, limiting NYSDEC's review to water quality standards. NYSDEC also moved for remand, acknowledging a procedural error in not requiring an environmental assessment form but arguing against preemption. The court determined that the Federal Power Act preempts NYSDEC from conducting a full SEQRA environmental review, limiting its authority to assessing compliance with State water quality standards. Consequently, NYSDEC was found to lack authority to require SEQRA-mandated forms, statements, or hearings for the 401 water quality certification.

Environmental LawFederal PreemptionWater Quality CertificationHydroelectric ProjectsState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Federal Power ActCPLR Article 78 ProceedingState AuthorityEnvironmental ReviewRegulatory Control
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership

Jose Verdugo, a food service deliveryman, was injured in December 2003 and received workers' compensation benefits. He also initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) later determined that Verdugo's disability ended on January 24, 2006, leading to the termination of his benefits. Subsequently, the defendants in the personal injury action sought to preclude Verdugo from relitigating the duration of his disability, arguing collateral estoppel based on the WCB's finding. The court, affirming the WCB's decision, reversed the Appellate Division's order, granting the defendants' motion to preclude further litigation on disability beyond the WCB's determined date, finding the issue was fully and fairly litigated.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsPersonal Injury ActionCollateral EstoppelAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation BoardDisability DurationMedical TreatmentLost EarningsMedical ExpensesGuardianship Proceeding
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 7,776 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