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

Boots v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Peter and Cindy Boots filed a products liability action against Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., alleging injury to Peter Boots from a defective utility knife. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting no manufacturing defect, no design defect as the proximate cause, substantial modification of the product, and that Plaintiff's own negligence was the sole proximate cause. The court denied the motion for summary judgment on the manufacturing defect claim, finding the plaintiff's expert report admissible. It also denied summary judgment on the design defect claim due to misleading design, and rejected the substantial modification argument. Finally, the court denied the proximate cause argument, as it was not established that Plaintiff's actions were the *sole* cause of injury.

Products LiabilitySummary JudgmentManufacturing DefectDesign DefectProximate CauseExpert WitnessUtility KnifeStrict LiabilityProduct SafetyFederal Civil Procedure
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp.

Justice Saxe dissents from the majority's decision to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the defendant's motion for summary judgment should be denied. The dissent contends that the sidewalk defect, a quarter-inch protruding metal object, is not trivial and presents an actionable tripping hazard, citing precedents that reject a minimal dimension test for defects. Furthermore, the dissent asserts that the defendant's claim of lack of notice is insufficient to establish an absence of constructive notice, especially given that the defect was present since a new sidewalk installation over two years prior to the accident. Justice Saxe distinguishes the current case from prior trivial defect cases, emphasizing that the defect here constitutes a potential trap or snare, thus raising a question of fact for a jury.

Sidewalk DefectTrivial Defect DoctrineSummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeTripping HazardPremises LiabilityPersonal InjuryDuty to Maintain PropertyIndependent Contractor LiabilityAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. ADJ2863902
Regular
Jul 21, 2009

KENNETH MOORE vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding of 20 percent permanent disability for a corrections officer's hernia injury. The defendant argued that the AMA Guides warranted zero percent impairment, but the Board found the agreed medical examiner's report constituted substantial evidence. The examiner determined the applicant met criteria for class II impairment based on frequent discomfort precluding heavy lifting, even with surgical mesh obscuring a palpable defect. The Board deferred to the medical expert's opinion, affirming the prior award.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityAMA GuidesAgreed Medical EvaluatorHerniaClass II ImpairmentCrohn's DiseaseApportionment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loughman v. AW Flint Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Loughman, a custodial worker, sued A. W. Flint Co., Inc., the manufacturer of a ladder, after he fell due to a design defect. A jury initially awarded Loughman $800,000, reduced to $640,000 for contributory negligence. The trial court set aside the verdict, ordering a new trial. On appeal, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed the trial court's order, finding that the jury's verdict was not "palpably wrong" and that the trial court abused its discretion in setting it aside. The appellate court reinstated the jury's verdict, affirming the finding of strict products liability and the damages awarded for Loughman's serious back injuries.

strict products liabilitydesign defectladder accidentjury verdictcontributory negligenceappellate reviewweight of evidenceexpert testimonypersonal injury
References
3
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 01602 [125 AD3d 920]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Clarke v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of First Student Management, LLC (FSM), allegedly was injured when she fell due to a defective condition at FSM's place of business. She commenced an action against Laidlaw Transit, Inc., the record owner of the premises. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting it had merged with First Student, Inc., and that First Student and FSM were functionally the same entity under Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions. The plaintiff cross-moved to amend the caption to name the defendant as "First Student, Inc. f/k/a Laidlaw Transit, Inc." The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, denying the defendant's motion to dismiss and granting the plaintiff's cross-motion, finding the defendant's documentary evidence did not conclusively establish a defense and that the proposed amendment was not palpably insufficient or prejudicial.

Personal Injury ClaimPremises LiabilityCorporate MergersWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)Leave to Amend PleadingCPLR 3025(b)Documentary EvidenceAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. ADJ2661083 (AHM 0097587) ADJ2316310 (AHM 0088976)
Regular
Oct 06, 2014

GENEEN RODRIGUEZ vs. STATEK CORPORATION, ACE USA

This case involves defendant Statek Corporation's petition for reconsideration of an award granting applicant Geneen Rodriguez a spinal cord stimulator. The Administrative Law Judge found the utilization review (UR) determination materially defective due to communication issues and the reviewer's specialty. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and found the UR determination was not materially defective. The Board concluded that any alleged defects were not significant enough to bypass the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process.

Utilization ReviewSpinal Cord StimulatorMaterially DefectiveIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code Section 4610Medical NecessityCompetency of ReviewerInternal MedicineTimely CommunicationDubon v. World Restoration
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palomino v. Winck

A longshoreman, referred to as the libelant, was injured aboard the respondent's vessel when a wooden crate being lowered caught his right ankle. The libelant claimed the injury was due to unseaworthiness or negligence, specifically implying a defective winch. However, no evidence of a defective winch was presented, nor was expert testimony offered to support the claim. The court distinguished this case from Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc., where evidence of a defective winch was provided. Ultimately, the court concluded that the libelant failed to sustain his burden of proof, and thus, the claim was denied.

longshoreman injuryunseaworthinessnegligence claimburden of proofmaritime lawdefective equipmentvessel accidentDistrict Court decisionadmiralty lawlack of evidence
References
1
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00638
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2015

Williamson v. Ogden Cap Properties, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they lacked constructive notice of a defective mailbox panel, as they never inspected it. Their alleged lack of a key was not determinative, as a cursory inspection might have revealed the defect. The court also found that defendants failed to demonstrate their negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. Ultimately, plaintiff's testimony and a witness statement created an issue of fact regarding the defect's duration and discoverability, necessitating a trial.

Summary JudgmentConstructive NoticePremises LiabilityMailbox Panel DefectAppellate ReviewProximate CauseIssue of FactNegligencePostal Worker AccidentProperty Maintenance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Carlo v. Clyde Bergemann US, Inc.

The plaintiff initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained from a ladder fall. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability concerning the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The court determined that while the plaintiff presented evidence of a defective ladder, they failed to establish that these defects were the proximate cause of the fall. This decision aligns with precedents requiring proof that the absence or defect of a safety device directly caused the injuries, citing cases such as Felker v Corning Inc.

Labor Law § 240(1)Negligence ActionLadder AccidentSummary Judgment MotionProximate CausationElevated WorkSafety Device DefectPersonal Injury ClaimWorkplace AccidentJudicial Review
References
4
Case No. ADJ9070770
Regular
Jun 10, 2014

OSCAR GARCIA-PICEN vs. TIGHT QUARTERS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior ruling ordering viscosupplementation injections for an applicant's knee injury. The WCAB found the prior ruling, which deemed the defendant's utilization review (UR) denial defective due to a missing signature, to be based on an incorrect premise as the UR physician did sign the report. However, the WCAB noted the UR physician may not have been aware of the applicant's second surgery, potentially rendering the UR defective for other reasons. The case was returned to the trial level for further consideration, with a dissenting opinion arguing the UR was demonstrably defective for omitting key medical history and the treatment should have been affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOscar Garcia-PicenTight QuartersInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ9070770Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationViscosupplementation injectionsUtilization Review (UR) denialDefective UR
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 960 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