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

Enderlin v. Hebert Industrial Insulation, Inc.

Plaintiff, George D. Enderlin, an employee of Salhen Enterprises, Inc., sustained a back injury while working on an asbestos removal project at the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, owned by Rochester Gas & Electric (RG&E) and contracted by Hebert Industrial Insulation, Inc. He twisted his back when a power screw gun slipped while he was on a stepladder, prompting him to grab a pipe to steady himself, though he did not fall. Enderlin and his wife filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241, which was initially denied summary judgment by the Supreme Court for the defendants. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding insufficient evidence that RG&E or Hebert supervised the work for Labor Law § 200 liability. Furthermore, the court determined that the alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (e) regarding stepladder security was not the proximate cause of the accident, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Construction accidentLabor LawWorkplace safetySummary judgmentProximate causeStepladderAsbestos removalPersonal injuryAppellate reviewMonroe County
References
13
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08027 [155 AD3d 900]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2017

Poalacin v. Mall Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nelson Poalacin, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder while working at a retail property undergoing refurbishment. He sued multiple defendants, including the property owners (Mall Properties, Inc., KMO-361 Realty Associates, LLC, The Gap, Inc.), the general contractor (James Hunt Construction), and subcontractors (Weather Champions, Ltd., APCO Insulation Co., Inc.), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Poalacin's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Poalacin summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the other Labor Law claims. The court also made declarations regarding indemnification and insurance coverage between the parties, finding Harleysville Insurance's policy was excess to Netherlands Insurance Company's policy, and remitted the matter for judgment entry.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationInsurance DisputesAdditional InsuredCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party Action
References
37
Case No. ADJ7073544
Regular
Sep 06, 2016

OMAR NUNEZ vs. PETROCHEM INSULATION, INC., AIG CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior dismissal of Omar Nunez's case. The WCAB found that the dismissal for failure to appear at trial violated Nunez's due process rights because no specific Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NIT) was issued for his non-appearance. The prior NIT addressed failure to prosecute, not failure to appear, thus depriving Nunez of an opportunity to object. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to DismissFailure to AppearDue ProcessWCAB RulesDismissal Without PrejudiceFailure to ProsecuteViolation of RulesRescind OrderReturn to Trial Level
References
0
Case No. 528988
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2020

Matter of Docking v. Lapp Insulators LLC

Claimant, a hazmat driver, sustained an unwitnessed fall at work in July 2017, resulting in a traumatic brain injury and memory loss of the incident. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, which the employer controverted. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found that the Workers' Compensation Law § 21 presumption of compensability applied, and the employer failed to rebut it. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision. On appeal, the employer argued that the injury resulted from a preexisting cardiovascular condition, presenting an independent medical examination report. However, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, finding that the employer failed to provide substantial evidence to rebut the presumption that the accident was work-related, giving appropriate deference to the Board's credibility determinations.

Accidental InjuryTraumatic Brain InjuryUnwitnessed FallPresumption of CompensabilitySubstantial EvidenceRebuttalMedical EvidenceCredibilityAppellate DecisionEmployer Liability
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snyder v. Town Insulation, Inc.

Plaintiffs Pauline and Richard Snyder sought damages for injuries allegedly caused by ureaformaldehyde foam insulation installed in their home in 1977, claiming respiratory problems from the installation date. The central legal issue was whether their personal injury causes of action were barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations, specifically regarding whether accrual under CPLR 214 is measured from the date of injury or the date of last exposure. The plaintiffs conceded the inapplicability of CPLR 214-c's date of discovery rule. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division both ruled that the date of injury rule applies, thereby finding the claims time-barred. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, reinforcing that a cause of action accrues when all elements of the tort can be truthfully alleged, which in this case was around the installation date.

Statute of LimitationsAccrual DateToxic TortUreaformaldehyde Foam InsulationPersonal InjuryDate of Injury RuleDate of Last Exposure RuleCPLR 214CPLR 214-cLatent Injury
References
20
Case No. ADJ9674694
Regular
Feb 02, 2016

RAMONDA WALKER vs. PETROCHEM INSULATION, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has jurisdiction over an applicant's claim for an injury sustained while working in Utah. The applicant, hired by a California-based company, argues California has jurisdiction because the company is based there, he paid California taxes, and he was directed to join a California union. However, the WCAB affirmed the finding that it lacked jurisdiction, as the applicant was hired and injured outside of California. The Board held that the location of the hiring and the injury are determinative for jurisdiction, not the employer's location or the applicant's tax payments.

JurisdictionContract of HireLabor Code § 5305Labor Code § 3600.5(a)WCABIndustrial InjuryPetrochem InsulationInc.Ramonada WalkerReconsideration
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John's Insulation, Inc. v. Siska Construction Co.

This action concerns a dispute between John's Insulation Inc., a prime contractor, and Siska Construction Company, Inc., a subcontractor, regarding the termination of Siska's subcontract on the O.S.H.A. Deficiencies Project at Fort Devens, Massachusetts. John's alleged poor workmanship by Siska as justification for termination, while Siska claimed wrongful termination and non-payment, bringing numerous counterclaims. The court denied Siska's motion for summary judgment, finding material issues of fact existed regarding the termination's propriety and Siska's performance. The court also partially granted John's cross-motion to dismiss Siska's counterclaims, dismissing claims for quantum meruit, civil rights violations, and certain conspiracy/criminal violation allegations, but allowing claims of conversion, libel, slander, and tortious interference with contract to proceed. John's motion for Rule 11 sanctions was also denied.

Construction ProjectSubcontract DisputeBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissCounterclaimsQuantum MeruitCivil Rights ViolationsConspiracyAntitrust
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2010

Cedar Petrochemicals, Inc. v. Dongbu Hannong Chemical Co.

Plaintiff Cedar Petrochemicals, Inc. sued Dong-bu Hannong Chemical Co., Ltd. for breach of a sales contract involving phenol that discolored during shipment. Dong-bu filed motions seeking sanctions against Cedar for failing to preserve phenol samples and to exclude Cedar's expert evidence. The court denied Dong-bu's motions to exclude expert testimony, finding the experts qualified, their data sufficient, and their methodologies reliable. Furthermore, the court denied the motion for sanctions, concluding that Dong-bu was not prejudiced by the spoliation of samples due to ample opportunities for inspection and their failure to prove the relevance of further testing.

Breach of ContractPhenol DiscolorationSpoliation of EvidenceExpert Testimony AdmissibilityRule 26 DisclosureRule 37 SanctionsRule 702 Expert WitnessCommercial LitigationChemical ShippingJudicial Discretion
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ibeto Petrochemical Industries, Ltd. v. M/T Beffen

Ibeto Petrochemical Industries, Ltd. sued M/T Beffen and Bryggen Shipping and Trading in the Southern District of New York after a base oil shipment from the United States to Nigeria arrived allegedly contaminated. Ibeto also initiated arbitration in London and parallel litigation in Nigeria concerning the same dispute. Plaintiff moved for voluntary dismissal of the federal suit, which defendants opposed, simultaneously moving to dismiss or stay in favor of London arbitration and to enjoin the Nigerian proceedings. The court denied Ibeto's voluntary dismissal motion, citing existing counterclaims and the risk of inconsistent verdicts from parallel actions. The court granted defendants' motions to stay the federal case, compel arbitration in London, and enjoin the Nigerian litigation, emphasizing the strong federal policy favoring arbitration and the prevention of vexatious forum shopping.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawArbitration AgreementStay of ProceedingsAnti-Suit InjunctionVoluntary DismissalContaminated CargoCharter PartyFederal Arbitration ActCOGSA
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1985

Sprague v. International Business Machines Corp.

This case concerns an appeal by Orange County Insulation Corp., a third-party defendant, against an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The order had granted International Business Machines Corp.'s, the defendant and third-party plaintiff, motion to compel further responses to a notice for discovery and inspection. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order and denied the motion, ruling that the workers' compensation carrier's claim file for the plaintiff in the underlying action was protected as material prepared for litigation. The court emphasized that the requesting party failed to demonstrate that the material could not be duplicated or that its withholding would lead to injustice. Additionally, the court found the request for the entire file overly broad and noted that the notice for discovery should have been served directly upon the non-party carrier.

Discovery DisputeAppellate ReviewPrivileged InformationWork Product DoctrineCPLRThird-Party DiscoveryMotion to CompelOverly Broad DiscoveryWorkers' Compensation Claim FileLitigation Preparation
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 65 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