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. 2024 NY Slip Op 01782 [226 AD3d 410]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2024

Nunez v. SY Prospect LLC

Plaintiff Arlender Nunez successfully moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendant SY Prospect LLC. Plaintiff fell from an unsecured ladder while performing work, asserting SY Prospect LLC failed to provide necessary safety devices. The court found plaintiff established a prima facie case that his injuries were proximately caused by a Labor Law violation. Defendants failed to present evidence to rebut this or to support a 'recalcitrant worker defense'. The Supreme Court's order granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division.

Ladder FallLabor LawSummary JudgmentProximate CauseSafety DevicesRecalcitrant Worker DefenseConstruction AccidentUnsecured LadderBuilding Owner LiabilityAppellate Affirmation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reynoso v. Prospect Associates, L.P.

Plaintiff Luis Reynoso, an employee, sustained injuries when an interior staircase collapsed during demolition work at a building owned by defendant Prospect Associates, L.P. and for which defendant Flintlock Construction, Inc. was the general contractor. Reynoso filed suit under Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices. Defendants disputed whether Reynoso was authorized to be in the building and the nature of the work he was performing, as demolition was not officially scheduled. The Supreme Court denied both plaintiffs' and defendants' motions for partial summary judgment, finding significant factual disputes. The appellate court affirmed this denial, emphasizing that issues regarding plaintiff's authorization and the applicability of Labor Law § 240 (1) to the staircase must be resolved at trial.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentStaircase CollapseDemolition Work InjuryWorker SafetyPremises LiabilityAuthorization DisputeFactual DisputesAppellate AffirmationConstruction Accident
References
1
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00832 [125 AD3d 435]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2015

Matter of Prospect Park E. Network v. New York State Homes & Community Renewal

This case involves an appeal regarding a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction aimed at halting work and public financing for a project until a further environmental review is conducted. Petitioners, including Prospect Park East Network, sought to annul a negative declaration of environmental impact issued by the New York State Housing Finance Agency (HFA). The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that HFA properly identified and thoroughly reviewed environmental concerns, providing a reasoned basis for its determination of no significant adverse environmental impacts. The court also found that any misclassification of the project as a Type I action was a harmless error since the appropriate review procedures were followed. Additionally, the court noted that HFA's financing impact was slight because the project could proceed without its funding.

Environmental ReviewPreliminary InjunctionNegative DeclarationHousing Finance AgencySEQRAType I ActionHarmless ErrorAppellate DivisionArticle 78Urban Development
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07470 [176 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2019

Matter of Kluge v. Town of Tonawanda

In 1997, James Kluge, a police officer, sustained work-related injuries, leading to a permanent partial disability classification. In 2017, his treating physician requested authorization for medical marihuana to treat chronic pain, which was initially denied by the employer's carrier. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge approved the variance, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, stating that a variance could not be approved for treatment already rendered. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, agreeing that a variance cannot cover past treatment but remitting the matter to the Board to consider the merits of Kluge's request for *prospective* medical marihuana treatment.

Chronic PainMedical MarihuanaWorkers' Compensation BenefitsVariance RequestPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical Treatment GuidelinesProspective TreatmentRemittalAppellate ReviewTreating Physician
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2004

Mete v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation

This class action alleged age discrimination in employment against the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities (OMRDD). Plaintiffs, former Chiefs of Developmental Center Treatment Services, claimed disparate treatment and disparate impact arising from a 1989 reduction in force (RIF) that eliminated their positions. All 46 Chiefs, who were over 40, were either demoted or retired, and statistical evidence showed a disproportionate impact on employees over 40. The Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all causes of action. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while plaintiffs established a prima facie case, OMRDD provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the RIF (economic conditions and long-standing concerns about the position's utility), which plaintiffs failed to adequately prove was a pretext for discrimination.

Age DiscriminationClass ActionSummary JudgmentDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactReduction in ForceEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie CaseStatistical Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Evevsky v. Liberty Mutual Group

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant's unauthorized medical treatment. The claimant, who sustained neck and shoulder injuries in 1993, had her case reopened in 2001 after the employer's carrier objected to her request for authorized massage therapy. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board determined that the treatment was not authorized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-b, as the massage therapist was not Board-authorized nor supervised by an authorized physician. The appellate court reviewed the Board's decision, affirming that there was no legal basis to overturn the finding. The court also considered and dismissed the claimant's constitutional arguments as being without merit.

Workers' CompensationMedical TreatmentMassage TherapyAuthorizationBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPhysician SupervisionConstitutionalityPermanent Partial Disability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 1979

Claim of Carley v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority

The Workers’ Compensation Board filed a decision on September 13, 1979, finding that the claimant's disability after January 21, 1977, was causally related to an industrial accident on January 1, 1977. The Board also determined that the claimant's subsequent treatment at the Veterans Administration Hospital was necessary and authorized. This determination was based on Dr. Russo's testimony. The court reviewed the appeal and found substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's decision. Consequently, the decision was affirmed, with costs awarded to the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Industrial AccidentCausally Related DisabilityMedical Treatment AuthorizationWorkers' Compensation AppealBoard DecisionVeterans Administration HospitalMedical TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAffirmed Decision
References
0
Case No. ADJ2593762 (SAC 0363364)
Regular
Jul 13, 2012

RICHARD HODGE vs. DEPENDABLE HIGHWAY EXPRESS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's decision to provide psychiatric treatment. Even if the need for psychiatric treatment stems from a potentially non-compensable psychiatric injury, the employer remains liable if the treatment is reasonably required to cure or relieve the effects of a compensable industrial injury. In this case, the applicant's psychiatric treatment was deemed necessary to address cognitive impairment caused by a compensable traumatic brain injury. Therefore, the employer is liable for this treatment under established case law, regardless of the nuances of the six-month employment rule.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)sudden and extraordinary exceptionsix-month employment rulemedical treatmentLabor Code section 4600reasonably requiredcure or relievenon-compensable injurypsychiatric treatmenttraumatic brain injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ2500591 (MON 0340362) ADJ1965867 (LBO 0302615)
Regular
May 13, 2011

Kenneth Tarvin vs. ROADWAY EXPRESS, Administered by GALLAGHER BASSET SERVICES

This case involves a lien claimant, Dr. Kenneth Webb, seeking reconsideration of a decision that limited his reimbursement for applicant Kenneth Tarvin's medical treatment. Dr. Webb argued for reimbursement for more than the allowed 24 visits, citing two separate injuries and post-surgical treatment exemptions. However, the Appeals Board denied his petition, finding insufficient substantial medical evidence to rebut the established treatment guidelines or support treatment for the cumulative trauma claim. The Board affirmed the original finding of entitlement to payment for 22 treatments at the reasonable value of services rate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantFindings of Fact and OrderReasonable Value of Services (RVS)Labor Code 4604.5(d)(1)24 visit capIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaCompromise and Release (C&R)
References
8
Case No. ADJ7660641
Regular
Jan 12, 2012

BREANNA CLIFTON vs. SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION (KMART CORPORATION), administered by SEDGWICK CMS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of an award finding industrial injury to claimant's knee, foot, and ankle, temporary disability, and reimbursement for self-procured medical treatment. Defendant contested the award of temporary disability and self-procured treatment based on claimant's treatment outside the employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN), citing *Valdez*. The WCAB found the original decision lacked sufficient explanation regarding the MPN establishment and notice, and the employer's liability for self-procured treatment. Therefore, the WCAB amended the award to defer issues of temporary disability, self-procured treatment, and attorney's fees for further proceedings at the trial level.

MPNValdezKnightself-procured treatmentprimary treating physicianindustrial injurytemporary disabilityreconsiderationmedical provider networkWCJ
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 2,309 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