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. 2007 NY Slip Op 30531(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2007

Schirmer v. Athena-Liberty Lofts, LP

This case is an appeal from an Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a personal injury action. The plaintiff, a worker at a construction site, sustained injuries, leading to the site owner, Lofts, settling the claim after being found liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). Lofts then pursued indemnity claims against lighting contractor HP and the plaintiff's employer, Burgess. The Appellate Court modified the lower court's decision, vacating the finding that Lofts' settlement amount was reasonable due to Lofts' failure to properly demonstrate reasonableness and its mischaracterization of waiver arguments by HP and Burgess. The Court also affirmed the denial of HP's motion for summary judgment, citing unresolved factual issues concerning inadequate lighting as a cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnity ClaimLabor Law § 240(1)Appellate DivisionThird-Party ActionSettlement ReasonablenessCross ClaimsInadequate Lighting
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S.H.

The Onondaga County Department of Social Services filed a motion requesting that reasonable efforts to reunite a child, born in August 2002 and removed from home in February 2003, with his parents were not required. The father had been convicted of a sex offense against a half-sibling, and his parental rights to another half-sibling were terminated. Both parents were found to have neglected, severely abused, and repeatedly abused the subject child. The mother admitted knowing about the sexual abuse but failed to intervene. The court found that the Department met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the parents subjected the child to aggravating circumstances and failed to demonstrate that reunification was in the child's best interests. Consequently, the motion to dispense with reunification efforts was granted.

Child NeglectSevere AbuseRepeated AbuseParental Rights TerminationSexual OffenseAggravated CircumstancesFamily Court ActSocial Services LawReunification EffortsFoster Care
References
2
Case No. ADJ7112948
Regular
Mar 30, 2017

LYLE BYNUM vs. VALLEJO TRANSIT, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award. The Board issued a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions against the defendant's attorney and insurance company for alleged bad faith actions. These actions included filing a petition for reconsideration with inaccurate and unsupported references to evidence, misrepresenting medical opinions, and asserting meritless contentions. The WCAB is considering sanctions of up to $2,000 and reasonable expenses due to these alleged violations of labor code and board rules.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10561Findings and AwardWCJBus DriverBack InjuryLeft Lower Extremity Injury
References
0
Case No. 2023-06-4955
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2024

Kean, Carma v. NAVION BKE BELLEVUE, LLC

Navion BKE Bellevue, LLC, filed a motion for partial summary judgment, contending there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding permanent impairment from Ms. Kean’s work-related injury. After a hearing, the Court granted the motion, finding no permanent impairment. However, because the parties agreed the claim was compensable, the Court ordered Navion to provide continuing reasonable and necessary medical treatment. The Court dismissed Ms. Kean's claim for permanent disability benefits with prejudice but affirmed her entitlement to future medical benefits, the need for which must be determined at the time they are requested.

Summary JudgmentPermanent ImpairmentMedical Treatment BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdmissibility of EvidenceC-32 FormsMedical Records AdmissibilityWaiver of ObjectionCompensabilityTemporary Disability Benefits
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McElroy v. State

This case concerns an appeal from a conviction for the misapplication of construction trust funds, a felony proscribed by TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 5472e. The appellant, a contractor, was found guilty of misapplying funds received from Mr. and Mrs. Cox for a home improvement project. The Court of Appeals found that the State produced insufficient evidence to prove the appellant's intent to defraud and failed to negate the statutory exception allowing the use of funds for reasonable overhead directly related to the construction project. The court noted that the State did not trace the funds or prove the application of proceeds from various checks to forbidden purposes. Consequently, the conviction is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions for an order of acquittal.

Construction LawCriminal LawAppealTrust FundsMisappropriationIntent to DefraudReasonable OverheadSufficiency of EvidenceStatutory InterpretationTexas Court of Appeals
References
24
Case No. 02 Civ. 8891
Regular Panel Decision

Bristol Investment Fund, Inc. v. Carnegie International Corp.

This Memorandum Opinion and Order, penned by Judge Scheindlin, addresses Bristol Investment Fund's application for attorneys' fees and costs. Previously, the court granted Bristol's summary judgment motion against Carnegie International Corporation on October 30, 2003, resulting in a judgment of $376,091.21. Bristol subsequently sought $17,816.35 for legal fees and expenses, citing various contractual agreements. Carnegie objected to the requested amount, challenging fees incurred after a settlement offer, the experience level of Bristol's attorneys, and the detail of certain disbursements. The court found Bristol's overall request reasonable and warranted, but disallowed costs related to word processing and secretarial work, categorizing them as unrecoverable overhead. Ultimately, the court awarded Bristol $16,711.65, comprising $15,753 in attorneys' fees and $958.65 in disbursements.

Attorneys' FeesSummary JudgmentContract DisputeLitigation CostsPrevailing PartyFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSettlement OfferOverhead CostsDisbursementsLegal Billing
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2001

Anderson v. Greater New York Housing Development Fund Co.

The court modified a judgment regarding awards for past and future pain and suffering, remanding the matter for a new trial on these damages unless the plaintiff agrees to reduced amounts ($150,000 for past, $225,000 for future). The jury's finding of liability under Labor Law § 241 (6) was affirmed, based on a violation of Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a) (1) due to the lack of suitable overhead protection which led to the plaintiff's injury from a falling brick. The court held that expert opinion on suitable protection was not required given the detailed Industrial Code specifications and undisputed lack of protection. Liability was also upheld under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, as defendants exercised control over the construction area and had the authority to correct unsafe conditions. The original awards for pain and suffering, totaling $575,000, were found to materially deviate from reasonable compensation.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetyFalling ObjectsConstruction AccidentPersonal InjuryDamagesPain and SufferingIndustrial Code ViolationNegligenceJury Verdict
References
7
Case No. ADJ4673406 (ANA 0403334) ADJ4233924 (ANA 0376527)
Regular
Sep 29, 2009

Joseph Vella vs. Hitchcock Automotive, State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case concerns a dispute over the reasonableness of a lien claimant's billing for outpatient surgery services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the original award, finding the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by concluding the lien claimant met its burden based solely on its usual billing practices without a proper analysis of reasonableness. The Board remanded the case to the ALJ to determine a reasonable fee considering all evidence, including the lien claimant's and defendant's submissions, as outlined in *Kunz* and *Tapia*. The decision emphasizes that the lien claimant bears the affirmative burden to prove the reasonableness of its fee.

Kunz doctrinelien claimantreasonable feerebuttal evidenceTapiabillingmedical treatmentoutpatient surgeryinpatient hospitalDRG
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kiphart v. Saturn Corp.

Ronald Jeffrey Kiphart sued Saturn Corporation and two unions under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging failure to reasonably accommodate his disabilities. Kiphart claimed multiple physical and mental impairments, including tendinitis, ulnar neuropathy, a fused cervical spine, and chronic depression, which he argued substantially limited his major life activities. Saturn contended Kiphart was not disabled under the ADA and was not a qualified individual, emphasizing that task rotation was an essential job function he could not perform. The company also asserted it provided reasonable accommodations through its Member Placement Program, offering temporary assignments and medical leave. The Court granted Saturn's motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding that no reasonable fact-finder could find Kiphart disabled, qualified, or that Saturn failed to provide reasonable accommodation. Consequently, Kiphart's claims against Saturn were dismissed with prejudice.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActReasonable AccommodationEssential Job FunctionsTask Rotation PolicyChronic DepressionTendinitisUlnar NeuropathyCervical Spine InjuryMedical Leave
References
41
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 32865(U)
Regular Panel Decision

Pomahac v. TrizecHahn 1065 Avenue of the Americas, LLC

The plaintiff slipped and fell in a building lobby due to a wet floor and subsequently sued the building manager (TrizecHahn) and maintenance company (ABM) for negligence, alleging a failure to place sufficient mats. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they took reasonable precautions by deploying two mats, a caution sign, and having an employee mop. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions on reargument. However, the appellate court reversed, granting summary judgment to the defendants, stating their actions constituted reasonable precautions as a matter of law. The court also held that failure to adhere to an internal policy for mat placement does not automatically equate to negligence if that policy's standard exceeds reasonable care. A dissenting opinion argued that a triable issue of fact existed concerning the reasonableness of precautions given recurring hazardous conditions and insufficient mat coverage.

Summary JudgmentNegligencePremises LiabilityWet FloorBuilding MaintenanceReasonable Care StandardInternal PolicySlip and FallTerrazzo FloorAppellate Division
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 5,657 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