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. 2019 NY Slip Op 06327 [175 AD3d 1062]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Pelonero v. Sturm Roofing, LLC

Plaintiff Salvatore Pelonero commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Sturm Roofing, LLC, seeking damages for injuries from a fall at a roofing site. The Supreme Court granted Pelonero's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously reversed this order, denying the plaintiff's motion. The court found that Pelonero failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding whether he was a worker and whether Sturm Roofing, LLC was an owner or contractor liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). Conflicting statements about how the accident occurred also raised an issue of fact. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to meet his burden on the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim lacked the necessary specific Industrial Code violations.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentRoofing WorkCredibility IssueProximate CauseSafety DevicesIndustrial CodeCommon-Law Negligence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John Schepanski Roofing & Gutters v. Roberts

The petitioners, John Schepanski Roofing & Gutters (Schepanski) and Prestige Roofing & Siding Co. (Prestige), sought judicial review of an order from the Commissioner of Labor of the State of New York, dated November 13, 1986. The original order found Schepanski willfully failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements to 19 employees during a roofing project at Suffolk County public schools, resulting in $282,240.46 in underpayments, and assessed a civil penalty of $35,000. Prestige was also held liable for its subcontractor's (Schepanski's) failure. The court granted the petitions and annulled the Commissioner's order, remitting the matter for further proceedings. While acknowledging substantial evidence for willful non-payment and improper record-keeping, the court determined that the respondent's method for calculating underpaid wages and supplements lacked a rational basis. Specifically, the respondent failed to credit Schepanski for some payments made, used an incorrect last day of work, and made an irrational inference about the number of workers present. As a result, the assessed civil penalty must also be reconsidered.

Prevailing WageWage UnderpaymentLabor Law ViolationCivil PenaltyJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingSubcontractor LiabilityRecord KeepingRational BasisRemittal
References
6
Case No. 01-23-00791-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2025

Jose Manuel Lopez Zeferino v. Anderson Morrison Construction, LLC; Anderson Morrision Roofing, LLC; Shawn Morrision; And Morrision Roofing, LLC

Jose Manuel Lopez Zeferino, an employee, sued his employer Anderson Morrison Construction, LLC and affiliates for negligence after falling off a roof. Lopez alleged his employer failed to provide workers' compensation insurance and necessary safety equipment, leading to his injury. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that Lopez was aware of the danger and possessed the needed equipment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that an employee's awareness of a dangerous condition does not negate the employer's duty to provide safe instrumentalities, especially for a nonsubscribing employer. The court determined that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the employer breached its duty.

Personal InjuryNegligenceEmployer LiabilityWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation NonsubscriberLadder AccidentRoofing IndustryDuty to Provide Safe Equipment
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. 08-20-00025-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2022

Ceci Ibarra v. Noah's Roofing and Construction

This case involves an appeal by Cecilia Ibarra against a judgment favoring Noah’s Roofing & Construction regarding a residential roofing and repairs contract. Ibarra argued that she was discharged from her payment obligations because Noah's Roofing allegedly committed a prior, material breach by performing unworkmanlike work. The trial court, however, found that Ibarra had certified the work as completed to her satisfaction and subsequently materially breached the contract by refusing to pay. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's findings and conclusions, ultimately affirming the judgment, concluding that Noah's Roofing performed its contractual obligations and Ibarra failed to prove a prior material breach or a breach of implied warranty.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractMaterial BreachWorkmanlike MannerAffirmative DefenseSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewTrial Court JudgmentCertification of WorkNon-payment
References
21
Case No. M2010-02544-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2011

Swift Roofing, Inc. v. State of Tennessee, Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development

Swift Roofing, Inc. appealed an administrative agency order affirming citations for workplace safety violations following a fatal accident. The Chancery Court had affirmed these citations. The Court of Appeals found that the administrative agency, the TOSHA Review Commission, failed to provide the statutorily required findings of fact, conclusions of law, and reasons for its decision, which is essential for effective judicial review under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. Consequently, the Court of Appeals vacated the order of the Chancery Court. The case was remanded for further proceedings, with instructions to the Chancery Court to remand to the Commission to issue a decision containing the necessary findings.

Workplace safetyFall protectionAdministrative agency reviewJudicial reviewOSHA standardsDue processFindings of factConclusions of lawRemandSummary judgment
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Life & Accident Co. v. Wade

This case involves an appeal by the Home Life & Accident Company from an award of the Industrial Accident Board in favor of C. Wade. Wade, an an employee of A. C. MacParlane, sustained injuries while loading steel cranes onto a barge in the navigable Sabine River. The central legal question was whether Wade's maritime injury fell under the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Law or the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts. The trial court initially awarded compensation to Wade under state law. However, the appellate court, citing various U.S. Supreme Court precedents and an Attorney General's opinion, concluded that maritime injuries are subject to federal admiralty law, thus precluding state workers' compensation jurisdiction. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the appellate court ruled in favor of the Home Life & Accident Company.

Admiralty lawMaritime jurisdictionWorkers' compensationFederal preemptionState lawInjury at workNavigable watersLongshoremanSabine RiverEmployer liability
References
5
Case No. 04-01-00723-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2003

Cram Roofing Co., Inc. v. Dennis J. Parker

Cram Roofing Company appealed the trial court's judgment against it in Dennis Parker's libel suit. The core of the dispute was a letter sent by Cram Roofing's attorney accusing Parker of 'voluntarily terminating' employment and engaging in 'illegal activities' after Parker started a competing business. The appellate court denied Cram Roofing's motion for rehearing en banc and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found that while 'voluntarily terminated' was not defamatory, the phrase 'illegal activities' could be interpreted as criminal conduct by an average person and was not substantially true. The jury's award of $50,000 for mental anguish damages to Parker was also upheld.

LibelDefamationStatute of LimitationsSubstantial TruthMental AnguishNon-Compete AgreementEmployment LawCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Keefe v. General Accident Insurance

Plaintiff Violet O'Keefe initiated an action against General Accident Insurance Company, alleging disparate treatment and retaliation based on age and sex, violating Title VII, ADEA, and New York Human Rights Law. O'Keefe claimed a discriminatory work environment and unlawful termination following her refusal of a proposed job transfer. The defendant argued O'Keefe's performance was poor and the transfer was a lateral move. The District Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the federal discrimination and retaliation claims, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether General Accident's reasons for termination were pretextual. However, the Court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the state law claims, declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIIADEARetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie Case
References
19
Case No. 2015-06-0248
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2015

Orellana, Jose v. Vazquez Roofing and Five Points Roofing

Jose Orellana, an employee of Vazquez Roofing, suffered a head injury and fractured right arm after falling from a ladder on March 30, 2015, in the course of his employment. The Workers' Compensation Court at Nashville determined that Mr. Orellana was an employee, not an independent contractor. As Vazquez Roofing lacked valid workers' compensation insurance, Five Points Roofing, as the statutory employer, and its carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance, were ordered to pay for Mr. Orellana's medical care. Claims against Plaza Insurance were dismissed as their policy with Vazquez Roofing had been canceled. However, Mr. Orellana's request for temporary disability benefits was denied due to insufficient evidence regarding the duration of his disability.

Workers' CompensationEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability DenialStatutory EmployerInsurance LiabilitySubcontractorFall InjuryArm Fracture
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 4,066 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