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

Rogers v. Westfalia Associated Technologies, Inc.

Ronald Rogers, while performing maintenance, fell nine feet from a stationary conveyor system at Agway Feed Mill. He and his wife, Lisa Rogers, sued Westfalia Associated Technologies, Inc. and Portee, Inc., alleging negligent design and manufacturing, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and strict products liability. Westfalia, Portee, Probec, Inc., and Mill Technology, Inc. filed motions for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty to Rogers and their products were not defective. The court found that Agway, the employer and purchaser, was in the best position to assess risks and declined optional safety equipment. Furthermore, Rogers was aware of the dangers, and warnings were posted. Consequently, the court granted all motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, counterclaims, and cross-claims.

Product LiabilityNegligenceStrict LiabilityDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentConveyor SystemIndustrial AccidentAssumption of RiskOpen and Obvious Danger
References
17
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02654
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2016

Matter of Dayannie I. M. (Roger I. M.)

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Family Court order which found Roger I.M. abused and neglected his daughter, Eyllen I.M., and derivatively abused his other children: Dayannie I.M., Hillary I.M., Keyri I.M., and Jackzenny I.M. The court found that the Suffolk County Department of Social Services presented sufficient evidence, including Eyllen's consistent out-of-court statements, expert testimony, and Roger I.M.'s written confession of sexual abuse. The Appellate Division upheld the Family Court's credibility assessment, rejecting the appellant's and the children's mother's disputes. The court also affirmed the derivative abuse findings for the other children, noting that a child's recantation does not necessarily invalidate prior abuse allegations, especially when pressured or if there is expert testimony indicating a false recantation.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewSexual AbuseCredibilityRecantationExpert TestimonyParental RightsSuffolk County Family Court
References
26
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05361
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2024

Rogers v. Peter Scalamandre & Sons, Inc.

The plaintiff, Michael Rogers, an employee of Certified Interiors, Inc., sustained personal injuries at a construction site when a boom lift he was operating suddenly malfunctioned. Rogers initiated an action against Peter Scalamandre & Sons, Inc., the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Scalamandre subsequently filed a third-party action against Certified for contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. The Supreme Court granted Rogers' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) and largely denied other motions. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by granting Certified's motion to dismiss the contractual indemnification claim, deeming it void under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 due to Scalamandre's negligence, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's rulings.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentBoom Lift MalfunctionLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)General Obligations Law § 5-322.1Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird-Party Action
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rogers v. New York University

Susan Rogers sued her former employer, New York University (NYU), alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), New York State and City Human Rights Laws, and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Rogers, an administrative aide, experienced psychological difficulties and took two medical leaves in 1997. After exhausting her FMLA leave, NYU terminated her, citing a lack of written medical certification for her return to work. The court granted summary judgment to NYU on Rogers' FMLA claims, finding that her therapist's oral communications were insufficient certification. However, the court denied summary judgment on her ADA claims, ruling that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether an extended leave would have been a reasonable accommodation for her disability, given that NYU did not fill her position but used temporary workers during the requested six-week extension.

ADAFMLAdisability discriminationreasonable accommodationsummary judgmentextended leaveemployment lawwrongful terminationmental healthpost-traumatic stress disorder
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rogers v. New York City Transit Authority

James Rogers, a member of the Socialist Workers' Party, was fined $50 by the New York City Transit Authority for selling newspapers on a subway station platform, violating a rule against unauthorized commercial activity. Rogers challenged this, asserting free speech violations and arguing his activities were permitted. The trial court sided with Rogers, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling the subway is not a public forum. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that subway stations are limited public forums subject to reasonable, content-neutral regulations. The Court upheld the Transit Authority's ban on sales activity, recognizing its legitimate interest in managing the transportation system for safety and efficiency.

First AmendmentFree SpeechPublic Forum DoctrineCommercial ActivitySubway StationPolitical CampaignExpressive ConductNew York City Transit AuthorityRegulationsAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. ADJ1063483 (SBR 0342621)
Regular
Sep 07, 2016

SONG ROGERS (Deceased); RICHARD ROGERS, vs. ALLIED VAN LINES, TRANSGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves Allied Van Lines seeking reconsideration of a prior order finding their employee, Song Rogers (now deceased), sustained a work-related injury. The employer argued the finding was based solely on the inconsistent testimony of the deceased's husband regarding employment details. The Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's findings that the husband's testimony was credible despite apparent inconsistencies. The Board emphasized the judge's opportunity to assess witness demeanor as critical to the credibility determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAllied Van LinesTransguard Insurance Company of AmericaSong RogersRichard RogersFindings and OrderDarren Bergey M.D.employee statuscredibility determinationdeposition testimony
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harry Winston, Inc. v. Kerr

This memorandum opinion addresses cross-motions concerning subject matter jurisdiction over a cross-claim filed by third-party defendant Bruce Winston against plaintiff Harry Winston, Inc. (HWI). HWI, initially suing Kathleen Kerr for revealing corporate confidences, moved to dismiss Bruce Winston's claim, which alleged corporate waste in HWI's prosecution of the original action. Bruce Winston contended his claim fell under Rule 14(a) or supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court granted HWI's motion, finding no subject matter jurisdiction as Bruce Winston's claim lacked a common nucleus of operative fact with HWI's claim against Kerr, and consequently denied Bruce Winston's cross-motion to amend as moot.

Subject Matter JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionCross-ClaimRule 14(a) ClaimRule 82Section 1367Corporate WasteCommon Nucleus of Operative FactShareholder Derivative ActionsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kerr v. Black Clawson Co.

Plaintiff Dean E. Kerr sustained injuries while operating a machine as an employee of a third-party defendant, leading him and his wife to sue Black Clawson Converting Machinery Corporation, the machine's manufacturer, for various liabilities. Black Clawson then initiated a third-party action against Kerr's employer for contribution or indemnification, alleging negligence. The employer moved for summary judgment, contending that a 1996 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which generally eliminated employer liability for third-party contribution except in cases of "grave injury," barred the claim. The Supreme Court denied this motion, prompting the employer's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial, referencing its prior decision in Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., which held that the Workers' Compensation Law § 11 amendment does not apply to actions pending before September 10, 1996.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party ActionContributionIndemnificationSummary JudgmentGrave InjuryStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationOmnibus Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 1996Employer Liability
References
1
Case No. ADJ6630793
Regular
Sep 16, 2010

TRACY ROGERS vs. TIMOTHY TOBIN dba BEACH AND COUNTY REAL ESTATE, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES

This case involves a worker's compensation applicant, Tracy Rogers, who filed a petition for removal. Rogers argued that denial of her petition would violate her due process rights by prejudging the case based on her representations. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied removal, finding no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report which stated that no evidence had been admitted, and prejudging the case would deny the defendant due process. The trial remains scheduled for September 28, 2010.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDenying RemovalSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable InjuryApplicantDefendantWCJ ReportDue ProcessMandatory Settlement Conference
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gjertsen v. Mawson & Mawson, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by a dockworker at a construction site. The plaintiff's employer, George W. Rogers, Inc., had paid workers' compensation. The appellants, Ingram & Greene, Inc. (a subcontractor) and H. Sand & Co., Inc. (the general contractor), sought indemnification from the employer, George W. Rogers, Inc., for the plaintiff's injuries. The initial order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, had dismissed their cross-claims and denied H. Sand & Co., Inc.'s motion to amend its answer. The appellate court reversed this order, finding that federal maritime law allows for indemnification based on either an express agreement or an implied warranty of workmanlike performance, and that Labor Law sections 240(1) and 241(6) impose liabilities equivalent to the doctrine of unseaworthiness.

Personal InjuryIndemnificationCross-claimsLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActFederal Maritime LawState Court JurisdictionImplied Warranty of Workmanlike PerformanceLabor Law ViolationsStrict LiabilityThird-Party Beneficiary
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 99 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