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. ADJ8534803 (MF) ADJ8535153
Regular
Nov 01, 2013

Randy Graves vs. Roy's Concrete & Masonry, Inc., Farmers Insurance

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a judge's finding that the applicant was not an employee of Roy's Concrete & Masonry, Inc. This decision was based on the judge's determination of the applicant's lack of credibility, citing inconsistencies in his testimony regarding pay and treatment history. The Board found that the judge's credibility assessment was entitled to great weight and that a formal Borello analysis was not required due to the absence of credible evidence of an employment relationship. Consequently, the applicant's claim for workers' compensation benefits was denied.

WCABReconsiderationEmployment relationshipCredibilitySubstantial evidenceBorello analysisTractor operatorRoy's Concrete & MasonryFarmers InsuranceWCJ
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 1989

Hartley v. Concrete

The plaintiffs, including Donald Hartley, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, that denied their motion for partial summary judgment on liability against defendants Spartan Concrete, Paul Schmergel & Son, and Seymar Associates d/b/a Seagull Associates. Donald Hartley, an iron-worker, was injured when wood decking collapsed at a construction site. The plaintiffs argued a violation of Labor Law § 240. The Supreme Court denied the motion, stating that while a Labor Law violation was established, proximate cause was not demonstrated. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding no triable issues of fact regarding proximate cause and ruling that the collapse of the unsafe elevated structure itself constituted the proximate cause of the injury, imposing absolute liability on the defendants under Labor Law § 240. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability was granted.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor Law § 240Absolute LiabilityProximate CauseSummary JudgmentElevated Work SiteScaffolding LawAppellate ReviewWorker Safety
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2000

Stein v. Beaver Concrete Breaking Co.

Stuart Stein appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to Beaver Concrete Breaking Co., Inc., dismissing his personal injury complaint. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, citing that a person can have both a general and special employer for Workers' Compensation Law purposes. Since Stein received workers' compensation benefits from his special employer, JAB Construction, Inc., and Beaver was determined to be his general employer, Beaver was shielded from the lawsuit under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 10, 11, and 29 [6].

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationTort LawNew York Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

Matter of Romero v. Capital Concrete

In this Workers' Compensation case, claimant Tunin Romero sustained injuries, leading to a claim for benefits. The employer, Capital Concrete, and its carrier, Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, failed to file a First Report of Injury or notice of controversy. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim and found the carrier liable. The carrier's application for review by the Workers' Compensation Board was denied for non-compliance with regulatory requirements (12 NYCRR 300.13 [b] [4] [v]). The Board also affirmed the WCLJ's denial of the carrier's request for further development of the record on the employer-employee relationship issue. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing the carrier's failure to object at the initial hearing and its unexplained absence.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureAdministrative ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationshipNotice of ControversyFailure to AppearAbuse of DiscretionJudicial ReviewClaim EstablishmentRegulatory Compliance
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 1982

Claim of Fabrizio v. J. R. J. Concrete Corp.

Claimant, a construction foreman, sustained injuries in 1976 while employed by J. R. J. Concrete Corporation and was subsequently awarded workers' compensation benefits. The employer and its carrier appealed the award amount, contending that the claimant had intentionally limited his income after the injury to continue receiving Social Security benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board concluded that the claimant did not limit his income. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the board's determination regarding factual questions and credibility, thus affirming the decision.

Workers' CompensationReduced EarningsSocial Security BenefitsAccidental DisabilityCredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewConstruction ForemanInjury ClaimBoard Determination
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03116 [238 AD3d 1415]
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2025

Matter of Balseca v. Hudson Concrete Inc.

Claimant Celso Balseca sought workers' compensation benefits for multiple injuries, including to his neck, back, and limbs, sustained from a fall off a ladder at work. The employer, Hudson Concrete Inc., and its carrier controverted the claim, challenging the accident's occurrence and causal relationship. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, crediting the claimant's testimony. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that the accident arose from and in the course of employment and that the injuries were causally related, deferring to the Board's credibility findings and its role in weighing conflicting medical evidence.

Workers' CompensationLadder FallCausal RelationCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceInjuries Arising out of EmploymentSpinal InjuriesShoulder Injuries
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05568 [209 AD3d 1075]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

Matter of Koratzanis v. U.S. Concrete, Inc.

Claimant John Koratzanis, a concrete mixer truck driver, sustained a work-related injury in October 2017 and subsequently filed a claim for Workers' Compensation benefits. The employer and its carrier alleged a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation, contending that Koratzanis failed to disclose his activities of authoring and self-publishing books on Amazon while receiving benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found a violation and imposed a mandatory penalty, but declined to impose a discretionary penalty. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision with minor corrections to the mandatory penalty dates. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's determination regarding the mandatory penalty duration was supported by substantial evidence and that its decision not to impose a discretionary penalty was not an abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation FraudMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyUndisclosed ActivitiesSelf-PublicationBenefit DisqualificationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionOverpayment Credit
References
8
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08300 [177 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2019

Warren v. E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Gary E. Warren et al., commenced a negligence action against E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc., and Verizon New York, Inc., seeking damages for injuries sustained by Gary E. Warren on a sidewalk outside his employer, Verizon. The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted Verizon's motion for summary judgment, concluding that workers' compensation benefits were the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law, and thus the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the summary judgment motion at that stage. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings after a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board.

NegligenceWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureRemittalScope of EmploymentSidewalk AccidentErie CountyFourth Department
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

This consolidated opinion addresses the enforceability of broad indemnification agreements between general contractors and subcontractors under New York's General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, especially when the general contractor is found partially negligent. The Court reviewed two appeals: Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. and Stottlar v Ginsburg Dev. Corp. In both instances, subcontractor employees suffered injuries, leading to claims against general contractors who, in turn, sought contractual indemnification. The Court concluded that because the agreements sought full indemnification, even where the general contractor contributed to the negligence, they were entirely void and unenforceable under the statute. The legislative intent behind § 5-322.1 is to prevent contractors from contractually shifting liability for their own negligence, whether in whole or in part, to subcontractors, thereby affirming the public policy against such clauses.

Indemnification agreementGeneral Obligations Law § 5-322.1Subcontractor liabilityGeneral contractor negligenceConstruction project injuriesWorkers' compensation insuranceCommercial general liabilityStatutory interpretationPublic policyContractual indemnification
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17 v. Union Concrete & Construction Corp.

Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17, AFL-CIO ("Local 17") filed a grievance against Union Concrete and Construction Corporation ("UCC") to compel arbitration regarding UCC's emergency snow removal work for Erie County in November 2014, alleging violations of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). UCC argued the work was not covered by the CBA's "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" definition, rendering the arbitration clause inapplicable. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation to grant UCC's motion for summary judgment and deny Local 17's. United States District Judge Richard J. Arcara conducted a de novo review and adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings in their entirety, concluding that the emergency snow removal work did not constitute "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" under the CBA. Consequently, Local 17’s motion for summary judgment to compel arbitration was denied, and UCC’s motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the closure of the case.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrabilitySummary JudgmentContract InterpretationEmergency Snow RemovalHeavy ConstructionHighway ConstructionScope of Arbitration ClauseDe Novo Review
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 295 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