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
Aug 28, 2002

Sharp v. Scandic Wall Ltd. Partnership

Gil Sharp, an elevator mechanic, sustained injuries on October 31, 1996, when an elevator car he was working on at 40 Wall Street fell 30 feet after he mistakenly cut supporting cables. He sued the premises owner, 40 Wall Street Development Associates, alleging violations of various Labor Law sections and OSHA regulations. The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss all claims, while Sharp cross-moved for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241-a, and to amend his bill of particulars. The court dismissed claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 241-a, 241 (6), and OSHA regulations. However, Sharp was granted summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), with the court finding the defendant liable for failing to provide adequate safety devices.

Elevator accidentPersonal injuryLabor Law § 240(1)Summary judgmentIndustrial CodeWorkplace safetyGravity-related hazardConstruction site accidentFall from heightOwner liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wall v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Martin Wall sued National Broadcasting Company, Inc. (NBC) for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), alleging his position was eliminated and his responsibilities given to a younger individual. NBC moved for summary judgment, arguing Wall's complaint was time-barred as he filed his claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 357 days after being notified of his termination, exceeding the 300-day limit for New York State claims. Wall contended the filing period should run from when he discovered he was replaced by a younger person (late December 1988), not his termination notice date (October 7, 1988), and argued for equitable tolling due to alleged misleading information from NBC about his job elimination being due to downsizing. The court, presided over by Judge Leisure, found that the cause of action accrued on October 7, 1988, when Wall was notified of his termination, consistent with the principle that the limitations period begins when the discriminatory decision is communicated. The court rejected the application of equitable tolling, finding Wall failed to provide sufficient evidence of extraordinary conduct by NBC that actively misled him or prevented him from exercising his rights. Consequently, the court granted NBC's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Wall's complaint as time-barred.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentADEAStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingAccrual of Cause of ActionTerminationWrongful DischargeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
28
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04927 [140 AD3d 1047]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2016

Ramirez v. I.G.C. Wall Systems, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and denying the defendant-appellant Antonio Iona's cross-motion for summary judgment based on the homeowner's exemption. The plaintiff's decedent was injured after falling from a makeshift ladder while working on a one-family home owned by Antonio Iona, who was also an officer of the general contractor, I.G.C. Wall Systems, Inc. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Antonio Iona's extensive involvement in the construction, including making and placing the ladder and instructing workers, negated his eligibility for the homeowner's exemption. Furthermore, the plaintiff successfully established a prima facie case for a Labor Law § 240(1) violation.

Homeowner's exemptionLabor Law § 240(1) liabilityLabor Law § 241(6) liabilityconstruction site accidentladder fallsummary judgmentpersonal injuryappellate reviewcontractor responsibilityworker safety
References
18
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00019 [190 AD3d 422]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2021

Lemache v. MIP One Wall St. Acquisition, LLC

Plaintiff Luis Lemache was injured when a pipe rolled onto his foot while relocating a concrete planter at a construction site. He sued MIP One Wall Street Acquisition, LLC and Gilbane Residential Construction, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied plaintiff's cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but modified the order, denying defendants' motion with respect to the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. The court found a triable issue of fact as to whether Gilbane Residential Construction exercised supervisory control over the work, particularly regarding safety standards and the use of licensed Bobcat operators.

Summary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction AccidentSupervisory ControlTriable Issue of FactAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkForeman
References
8
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05448 [242 AD3d 441]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2025

437 W. 36th St. LLC v. ZDJ W 37 LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's causes of action for declaratory judgment based on adverse possession and for permanent injunctive relief, and denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiff, 437 West 36th Street LLC, failed to sufficiently plead hostile use regarding a retaining wall abutting two properties, as its mutually beneficial nature suggests permissive use. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not demonstrate irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits required for injunctive relief concerning interference with retaining walls or ongoing excavation work by the defendant, ZDJ W 37 LLC.

Adverse PossessionInjunctive ReliefRetaining WallProperty DisputeHostile PossessionIrreparable HarmPreliminary InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewReal Property Law
References
5
Case No. ADJ8066822
Regular
May 30, 2019

SCOTT WALL vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case concerns a deputy sheriff sergeant, Scott Wall, who alleges discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. Wall was denied a requested transfer to a patrol division while on injury leave, despite having the seniority for it. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding that the County of Sacramento discriminated against Wall by denying the transfer, as less senior employees were transferred. The employer's defense of business necessity was rejected because the County had other options to fill the critical patrol positions.

Labor Code section 132aDiscriminationRetaliationTransfer denialSeniorityBusiness necessityPrima facie caseDisadvantageous treatmentWCJReconsideration
References
12
Case No. ADJ10477247
Regular
Oct 31, 2017

ESTELA WALLE vs. THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP

Here's a summary of the two cases for a lawyer, in max four sentences each: **Case 1: Estela Walle vs. The Permanente Medical Group (ADJ10477247)** The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain a back injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The Board gave significant weight to the WCJ's credibility determination, finding no substantial evidence to warrant overturning it. Therefore, the applicant was awarded nothing on her claim. **Case 2: Estela Walle vs. The Permanente Medical Group (ADJ8620015, ADJ9183471)** The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's award for psychiatric injury and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board found the analysis of whether the injury was predominantly caused by employment events, and specifically by lawful, good faith personnel actions, to be inadequate under *Rolda*. Further development of the record is required to clarify the events of May 21, 2012, and to determine the precise causal contribution of employment-related factors versus good faith personnel actions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderApplicantInjury Arising Out of and In the Course of EmploymentAOE/COEBack InjuryWCJCredibility DeterminationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stair v. Calhoun

Plaintiffs' counsel, Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., moved to withdraw from representing plaintiffs and sought a charging and retaining lien due to plaintiff Theodore Stair's substantial unpaid legal fees. Stair opposed the withdrawal, citing a pending settlement. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw, finding Stair's prolonged failure to pay constituted deliberate disregard of his financial obligations. The court also granted a charging lien for $37,546.87, representing adjusted reasonable hours and expenses, but denied the motion for a retaining lien to prevent prejudice to the ongoing litigation and due to Stair's alleged indigence.

Withdrawal of CounselCharging LienRetaining LienUnpaid Legal FeesAttorney-Client RelationshipDeliberate DisregardQuantum MeruitShareholder DilutionMotion PracticeFee Dispute
References
86
Case No. ADJ6836629
Regular
Oct 01, 2013

EVERSON WALLS vs. BALTIMORE RAVENS fka CLEVELAND BROWNS, NEW YORK GIANTS, PMA INSURANCE GROUP c/o GALLAGHER BASSETT and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA c/o CHARTIS CLAIMS INC., DALLAS COWBOYS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Everson Walls' workers' compensation claim against the Cleveland Browns (now Baltimore Ravens) for an injury sustained while playing professional football. The Board found that Walls was only temporarily employed in California and that the Browns, as a self-insured Ohio employer, provided coverage under Ohio law, which reciprocates California's extraterritorial provisions. Consequently, the Browns are exempted from California workers' compensation law under Labor Code §3600.5(b), and are therefore dismissed from the case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code §3600.5(b)National Football LeagueNFLProfessional Football PlayerCumulative Trauma InjuryTemporary Employee ExemptionExtraterritorial CoverageOhio Bureau of Workers' CompensationSelf-Insured Employer
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larosae v. American Pumping, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Windsor Machinery Company, was injured after falling 30 feet into a ravine while reconstructing a retaining wall. The wall was located partially on Windsor's property and partially on property owned by defendant Charles Norman, and was being repaired for the benefit of both. Plaintiff sued Norman and American Plumbing, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Norman moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint against him, arguing the accident occurred on Windsor's property and he was not an "owner" under the Labor Law. The Supreme Court denied Norman's motion and granted plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Norman. On appeal, the court affirmed that Norman qualified as an "owner" under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) because he had an interest in the property being improved. However, the court found Norman was not liable under common-law negligence or Labor Law § 200, as he did not exercise supervisory control over the work. Therefore, the order was modified to dismiss the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Norman, and affirmed as modified.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentOwner LiabilityNondelegable DutySupervisory ControlCommon-Law NegligenceAppellate ReviewRetaining WallConstruction AccidentProperty Interest
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 556 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