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
Feb 11, 2003

Reger v. Harry's Harbour Place Grille, Inc.

Conrad G. Reger, an independent contractor, sustained injuries after falling from an unsecured ladder while applying caulking to a roof at a restaurant operated by Harry's Harbour Place Grille, Inc. on premises leased from Harbour Place Marine Sales, Inc. Plaintiffs commenced an action for damages, asserting claims under Labor Law § 240 (1), § 241 (6), and § 200. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment for both parties on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, citing a factual issue regarding whether Reger was involved in roof repair. The court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim because Reger was not engaged in construction, excavation, or demolition, and the Labor Law § 200 claim due to lack of evidence of defendants' supervision and control. The appellate court affirmed the order without costs.

Ladder FallSummary JudgmentIndependent Contractor InjuryPremises LiabilityRoof Repair AccidentUnsecured LadderLabor Law ClaimsPersonal InjuryAppellate AffirmationConstruction Safety
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baker v. Sensitive Care-Lexington Place Health Care, Inc.

Justice O’Connor dissents, asserting the trial judge erred by not sustaining Carrie Baker’s Batson challenge against Lexington Place. Lexington Place used a peremptory strike on Rhonda West, an African-American postal worker, justifying it by claiming postal workers are "militant and pro-employee." However, Lexington Place did not strike Michael Lee Brown, an Anglo male postal worker, and its attorney offered an unconvincing explanation for this disparity. The dissent argues that Lexington Place’s reasons were pretextual, as West's voir dire responses were pro-employer, and there was no evidence of her union membership. Given the disparate treatment and the implausible explanation, Justice O'Connor concludes that the trial court abused its discretion and advocates for a new trial.

Batson ChallengePeremptory StrikeRacial DiscriminationJury SelectionVoir DireEqual ProtectionAbuse of DiscretionPretextual ReasonDissenting OpinionTrial Court Error
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00956
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Cacanoski v. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC

The plaintiff, Krste Cacanoski, was injured after falling through a skylight during asbestos removal work for 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC. He commenced an action against 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, subsequently initiated a third-party action against Cacanoski's employer, Superior Abatement, Inc., seeking contractual indemnification under a subcontract executed after the accident. The Supreme Court denied both the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law claim and Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order with respect to the plaintiff's motion, granting summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, finding that the absence of necessary protection was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The court affirmed the denial of Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the parties intended the indemnification provision to apply retroactively.

Labor Law § 240(1)Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAsbestos RemovalFall from heightSky-lightContractual IndemnificationRetroactive AgreementWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Appellate Division
References
19
Case No. 2021-06-1619
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2022

Hutchison, Lisa v. Health Center at Standifer Place

Lisa Hutchison sought workers' compensation benefits for a knee injury from a fall while working for Health Center at Standifer Place. The employer denied the claim, arguing the injury was idiopathic. Following an expedited hearing on August 10, 2022, the Court found Ms. Hutchison unlikely to prevail on the merits regarding her requested relief due to inconsistencies in her account and a lack of supporting evidence. Additionally, the Court referred Health Center at Standifer Place to the Compliance Program for consideration of penalties due to its failure to participate in mediation and appear at court hearings. The requested relief was denied, but nothing precludes her from obtaining supplemental evidence and renewing her requests.

Workers' Compensation ClaimsExpedited HearingIdiopathic Injury DefenseEmployer Non-complianceMediation FailureCourt Appearance FailureBenefit DenialKnee InjuryFall at WorkEvidentiary Standard
References
6
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02965 [138 AD3d 927]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2016

Jardin v. A Very Special Place, Inc.

Jean-Paul Jardin, injured in a construction site fall from an unsecured ladder, sued A Very Special Place, Inc. (VSP) and Kang Suk Construction, Inc. under Labor Law § 240(1). VSP sought contractual indemnification from Kang Suk and Trinity Interior Coatings, Inc. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Jardin's summary judgment motion due to factual disputes regarding his site authorization. However, the court modified a prior order, granting VSP conditional summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Kang Suk, finding VSP free from negligence. VSP's claim against Trinity was denied as their indemnification agreement was signed after the accident and lacked retroactive intent.

Construction Site AccidentLadder SafetyLabor Law ViolationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentThird-Party LiabilitySubcontractor AgreementsRetroactive Contract ApplicationAppellate Division ReviewPersonal Injury Litigation
References
16
Case No. Index No. 28997/20; Appeal No. 5887; Case No. 2025-00685
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

Roque v. 240 Lincoln Place LLC

Plaintiff Antonio Rosario Roque sought summary judgment on liability for his Labor Law § 240(1) claim after falling from a 12-foot A-frame ladder that slipped while he was working on it. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted his motion. Defendant 240 Lincoln Place LLC appealed, arguing that Roque was a recalcitrant worker or the sole proximate cause of the accident, citing his use of a closed A-frame ladder and the availability of an eight-foot ladder. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's order. The court found that the defendant failed to raise an issue of fact, noting Roque's valid reasons for his ladder choice and the instability of the alternative ladder.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentLadder FallWorker SafetyDefendant LiabilityPlaintiff RightsNegligence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamb v. City of West University Place

Plaintiff Rita Lamb sued her employer, the Police Department for the City of West University Place, and the City itself, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII. Lamb claimed her supervisor, Sergeant Michael Peterson, engaged in inappropriate conduct and retaliated against her with negative performance reviews, impacting her pay. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing Peterson's conduct was not severe or pervasive enough for actionable harassment and that they took prompt remedial action. The court found that Lamb failed to establish a prima facie case for hostile work environment sexual harassment, concluding Peterson's actions were not sufficiently severe or pervasive and the City's responses were prompt. Additionally, the court dismissed Lamb's retaliation claims, deeming the pay raise complaint time-barred and other allegations legally insufficient, ultimately granting summary judgment for the defendant.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIIQuid Pro QuoEmployment DiscriminationPerformance ReviewConstructive DischargeFederal Court
References
39
Case No. 01-16-00026-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2017

Michael Barnett v. City of Southside Place

Michael Barnett appealed the trial court's decision to grant the City of Southside Place's plea to the jurisdiction in his whistleblower suit. Barnett alleged he suffered adverse employment actions, including termination and a dishonorable discharge report to TCOLE, in retaliation for reporting an illegal ticket quota practice. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, finding that Barnett failed to raise a fact issue regarding adverse employment action because he had voluntarily resigned before the alleged termination. The court also held that the Texas Whistleblower Act does not apply to post-employment actions for former employees based on the statutory definition of 'public employee'.

Whistleblower ActGovernmental ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionAdverse Employment ActionRetaliation ClaimPublic Employee DefinitionPost-Employment ActionsVoluntary ResignationTexas Whistleblower ActPolice Misconduct
References
14
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05748 [198 AD3d 1120]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2021

Matter of Hawkins (A Place for Rover Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Benjamin Hawkins' claim for unemployment insurance benefits. A Place for Rover Inc. (Rover), an online platform for pet services, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that found Hawkins to be an employee. The Appellate Division, Third Department, examined whether an employment relationship existed, focusing on the level of control Rover exercised over its service providers. The court determined that Rover did not exert sufficient control over the providers' services, methods, or outcomes, concluding that providers were independent contractors. Consequently, the Board's determination was reversed.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorGig EconomyPet ServicesOnline PlatformEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewLabor LawStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Case No. 08-02-00452-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2003

Jesse Davila v. Pay & Save Corporation D/B/A Lowe's Market Place, Inc.

Jesse Davila appealed a summary judgment against him in favor of his former employer, Pay & Save Corporation, doing business as Lowe's Market Place, Inc. Davila was fired after another employee accused him of sexual harassment. He sued Pay & Save, alleging defamation, negligence, invasion of privacy, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment for Pay & Save on all claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Davila failed to establish error regarding his claims, and denied Pay & Save's motion for damages for frivolous appeal.

Sexual HarassmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment AppealDefamation ClaimNegligence ClaimInvasion of PrivacyFraud AllegationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployer LiabilityScope of Employment
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,514 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