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. 2018 NY Slip Op 06839 [165 AD3d 1360]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2018

Matter of Mitchell v. Eaton's Trucking Serv., Inc.

Claimant James Mitchell, a tractor truck driver, filed a workers' compensation claim for injuries to his right hand, wrist, arm, and shoulder, identifying both Eaton's Trucking Service, Inc. (Eaton) and Quality Carrier's, Inc. (Quality) as his employers. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Eaton was Mitchell's general employer and Quality was his special employer, making both 50% liable for benefits. Quality appealed this decision, challenging the special employment finding. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Mitchell was a special employee of Quality, considering factors such as control over work, method of payment, furnishing of equipment, and the nature of the work arrangement between Eaton and Quality.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceTractor Truck DriverOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
7
Case No. ADJ6641822
Regular
Aug 30, 2018

ROBERT PELAYO vs. QUALITY CARRIER, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND CMS MONTEREY PARK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision in the case of Robert Pelayo v. Quality Carrier, Inc. Subsequently, the parties reached a settlement. The Board rescinded its original decision and returned the matter to the trial level for the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge to review the settlement. If the settlement is not approved, the original decision can be reinstated.

ADJ6641822Pelayo v. Quality CarrierInc.Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration grantedSettlement reviewTrial level returnRescinded decisionAdministrative Law JudgeFindings of Fact
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 1981

Claim of Fortuna v. Pfizer, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning additional compensation for a claimant's left foot injury. The claimant received a schedule award until April 4, 1978, and subsequently additional compensation from April 4, 1978, to January 7, 1980, which was later continued. The appellant carrier sought review, claiming entitlement to a credit for alleged overpayments, arguing the claimant was employed while receiving compensation benefits. The Board found the claimant was entitled to additional compensation and the carrier was not entitled to any credit, a decision that was later amended. Appellants contended that the schedule award was not terminated within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law section 15 (subd 3, par [v]) due to the claimant's employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that 'disability' in a schedule award context refers to 'impairment of earning capacity,' not 'loss of earnings,' and found the Board's determination to be rational and reasonable.

Workers' CompensationSchedule AwardImpairment of Earning CapacityLoss of EarningsOverpaymentEmployment During DisabilityAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionCredit ClaimSection 15(3)(v) WCL
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 1985

Landi v. Carrier Corp.

The claimant, a 61-year-old brake press operator, suffered an acute back strain and aggravation of degenerative disc disease, leading to total disability for a period in 1982. He subsequently retired in February 1983, asserting his inability to perform even a light-duty inspector's job offered by his employer due to his ongoing partial disability. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge ruled that the claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the claimant's retirement was directly attributable to his continuing permanent partial disability, a finding supported by his doctor's reports and his own testimony. The employer and its carrier appealed the Board's decision, but the appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Back StrainDegenerative Disc DiseaseTotal DisabilityPartial DisabilityVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketWorkers' Compensation BoardMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceOrthopedist
References
3
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07110
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

People v. R.V.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted the defendant R.V.'s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, noting that R.V. purchased a false Covid-19 vaccination card to maintain employment as an essential worker during the pandemic. The decision highlighted that R.V.'s actions caused no specific or societal harm, supporting the dismissal in the interest of justice.

Indictment DismissalInterest of JusticeCPL 210.40COVID-19 Vaccination CardEssential WorkerAppellate ReviewDiscretionary DismissalLack of Harm
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2011

Monda v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order compelling Elite Contractors Trust of NY, the workers’ compensation carrier for Northstar Contracting Corporation, to consent to a settlement of the plaintiff's claims. The carrier was also ordered to extinguish its workers’ compensation lien based on its proportionate share of the plaintiff's attorneys’ fees. The court determined that the value of future benefits to the carrier, represented by its relief from future payment obligations due to the settlement, is quantifiable by actuarial means. Consequently, the court appropriately considered this future benefit when calculating the carrier's share of the plaintiff's attorneys’ fees. This decision aligns with established precedents, including *Burns v Varriale* and *Matter of Kelly v State Ins. Fund*.

Workers' CompensationSettlementLienAttorney's FeesFuture BenefitsPermanent Total DisabilityActuarial ValuationInsurance CarrierThird-Party DefendantSupreme Court
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfgang Doerr v. Daniel Goldsmith / Cheryl Dobinski v. George O. Lockhart

This concurring opinion by Justice Abdus-Salaam addresses two cases, Doerr v Goldsmith and Dobinski v Lockhart, concerning negligence claims against domestic animal owners for injuries caused by their pets. The opinion reaffirms the long-standing "vicious propensities" rule established in Bard v Jahnke, which limits liability solely to strict liability when an owner knew or should have known of an animal's dangerous tendencies. Justice Abdus-Salaam rejects arguments to extend the Hastings v Sauve precedent, which allowed negligence claims for farm animals straying from property, to domestic pets. The opinion also refutes the distinction between an owner's active control and passive failure to restrain, emphasizing that a pet's volitional behavior is the ultimate cause of harm. Consequently, Justice Abdus-Salaam votes to dismiss the negligence claims in both cases and affirms the dismissal of Dobinski's strict liability claim due to insufficient evidence of the owners' prior knowledge of their dogs' propensities.

Animal LawNegligenceStrict LiabilityDomestic AnimalsFarm AnimalsVicious Propensity RuleDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 1978

Keefer v. Norton Co.

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board found that the claimant suffered an occupational disease, specifically a herniated disc, due to repetitive lifting of heavy belts during employment. The Board determined that the employment acted upon the claimant's condition to cause a disability that previously did not exist, referencing Perez v. Pearl-Wich Co. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence. Costs were awarded to the Workers’ Compensation Board against the employer and its insurance carrier.

Occupational DiseaseHerniated DiscRepetitive LiftingWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewDisability CausationSubstantial EvidenceBoard Decision AffirmedEmployment-Related Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Nebenhaus v. Lydmark Corp.

The claimant, a butcher and president of Lydmark Corporation, allegedly suffered heart attacks and failed to file a timely notice of claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board excused this delay, citing prompt medical attention and no prejudice to the carrier. However, the employer and its carrier appealed. The court found that the carrier did not receive notice within the statutory 30 days, and the Board's finding of no prejudice was unsupported. The claimant had previously indicated no intent to file a compensation claim on disability forms, and the employer corporation disbanded, hindering the carrier's investigation. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision, with costs to the carrier against the Workers’ Compensation Board, and remitted the matter for further proceedings on the issue of prejudice.

Workers' Compensation LawNotice of ClaimTimely NoticePrejudice to CarrierHeart AttackEmployer's Report of InjuryEmployee's Claim FormDisability BenefitsCorporate OfficerAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 20,552 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