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. 2020 NY Slip Op 05651 [187 AD3d 1662]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2020

Shaw v. Scepter, Inc.

Mark A. Shaw, the plaintiff, sustained injuries while attempting to unload a man lift from a flatbed truck on the defendant Scepter, Inc.'s property. The incident occurred when the lift unexpectedly rolled off the flatbed, causing the lift's basket to fall and injure Shaw. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment, dismissing Shaw's claims under Labor Law, which was subsequently appealed. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating Shaw's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and a portion of his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court found that issues of fact existed regarding whether the lift was defective and if the defendant had notice of such a defect, thus precluding summary judgment for either party on these specific claims.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentMan Lift AccidentConstruction Site SafetyElevation-Related RiskIndustrial Code ViolationsWorker InjuryFlatbed TruckAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
23
Case No. CA 11-02000
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2012

OLSEN, MICHAEL JAMES v. KOZLOWSKI, SHIRLEY F.

Plaintiff Michael James Olsen commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained from falling during residence construction. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants Louis F. Kozlowski and Shirley F. Kozlowski (property owners) cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted dismissal against Louis F. Kozlowski and denied dismissal against Shirley F. Kozlowski, also granting plaintiff's motion against Shirley F. Kozlowski. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying plaintiff's motion in its entirety, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether Shirley F. Kozlowski was an officer of the employer, which could bar the action under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6).

Personal InjuryLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationOfficer LiabilityEmployer ImmunityConstruction AccidentFall from Height
References
20
Case No. SFO 495194
Regular
Jul 17, 2007

SHIRLEY SHAW vs. SETON MEDICAL CENTER, Permissibly Self-Insured and Administered by OCTAGON RISK SERVICES

This case involves a dispute over the apportionment of permanent disability for Shirley Shaw's left shoulder and neck injury. The employer sought reconsideration of an award finding $34\%$ permanent disability, arguing the judge erred by not apportioning $30\%$ of the disability to a pre-existing condition as suggested by the Agreed Medical Examiner. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and returned the case for further proceedings on apportionment, noting the defendant did not waive the issue and that the AME's apportionment lacked sufficient detail.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSETTER MEDICAL CENTEROCTAGON RISK SERVICESSHIRLEY SHAWOPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATIONFINDINGS AND AWARDPERMANENT DISABILITYAPPORTIONMENTAGREED MEDICAL EXAMINERPRE-EXISTING DEGENERATIVE CONDITION
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2009

Shaw v. RPA Associates, LLC

Frederic E Shaw, an employee of Rockbusters, sustained injuries at a construction site when a dump truck he was operating capsized. He and his wife commenced an action seeking damages for personal injuries, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against RPA Associates, LLC, AVR Realty, and Patriot Ridge Development, LLC. Patriot Ridge, the owner and developer, also brought a third-party action against Rockbusters for indemnification. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment, dismissing both the complaint and the third-party complaint. On appeal, the court dismissed portions of the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the parties were not aggrieved, and affirmed the judgment insofar as reviewed, thereby upholding the dismissal of the claims.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentDump Truck AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor Law ViolationsCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party ActionIndemnification ClaimAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
18
Case No. ADJ2570253
Regular
Oct 18, 2012

SHIRLEY KING vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Shirley King's Petition for Reconsideration regarding her medical mileage claim. The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) findings, which found the applicant lacked credibility due to apparent willful dishonesty about her residence. However, the Board returned the case to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the employer's request for sanctions under Labor Code section 5813. The WCJ will address sanctions because the alleged misconduct occurred during proceedings before them.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJLabor Code section 5813sanctionswillful dishonestycredibilityAgreed Medical ExaminerStipulations with Request for Awardpermanent partial disability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farren v. Shaw Environmental, Inc.

Plaintiff Ann Farren, administratrix of Kenneth Farren's estate, sued Defendant Shaw Environmental, Inc. for Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law violations, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation. Kenneth Farren, a laborer's foreman, reported sexual harassment by a coworker, Albert Puma, including sexually explicit and threatening remarks. Defendant disciplined Puma with a one-week suspension, but Farren eventually left the job due to alleged escalating harassment and was later terminated during a workforce reduction. The court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence of gender-related harassment or disparate treatment, and no triable issue of fact regarding retaliation or constructive discharge. The court concluded that Puma's comments were expressions of animosity rather than sexual desire and that Farren's absenteeism was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination.

Gender DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawConstructive DischargeExhaustion of Administrative RemediesDisparate Treatment
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Shaw

The petitioner, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, sought review of a determination by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct that censured him for misconduct. The Commission found that the petitioner had engaged in inappropriate and demeaning conduct, including making sexual comments and unwanted physical contact, with his secretary, Jacqueline Bland. Despite the petitioner's arguments that the allegations were fabricated and his presentation of character witnesses, the Commission adopted the Referee's credibility determination in favor of Bland. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's decision, accepting the censure. The court also ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review a subsequent motion by the petitioner to reconsider the determination based on newly discovered evidence.

Judicial MisconductCensureSexual HarassmentCredibility DeterminationAppellate ReviewNew York Court of AppealsJudicial EthicsDue ProcessNewly Discovered EvidenceJurisdiction
References
6
Case No. ADJ7516841
Regular
Mar 05, 2012

KAREN SHAW vs. CAST & CREW ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns applicant Karen Shaw's claim for workers' compensation benefits after she slipped and broke her wrist and ankle while walking to a bookstore in San Francisco. The defendant, Cast & Crew Entertainment Services, Inc., argued the injury was not compensable, citing the going-and-coming rule and the bunkhouse rule. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that Shaw's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment under the commercial traveler rule. The Board determined that Shaw's walk, while on an extended business trip and on call, was a reasonable expectancy of her employment, even if considered personal activity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKaren ShawCast & Crew Entertainment ServicesInc.Zurich North AmericaADJ7516841San Franciscogoing and coming rulebunkhouse ruleMotion Picture Health Plan
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carter v. Bane

Petitioner Shirley Carter, the paternal grandmother of Javette Alexander, challenged a New York State Department of Social Services (NYS-DSS) decision disallowing foster care payments for Javette from May 2, 1986, onwards. While payments were approved for an earlier period, NYS-DSS argued Carter's foster parent status lapsed upon the expiration of a Family Court placement order. The court found that the New York City Department of Social Services (NYC-DSS) failed in its statutory duty to extend or review Javette's placement, effectively abandoning the child and unjustly changing Carter's status from a paid caregiver to a volunteer. The court granted Carter's application, ordering retroactive foster care payments from May 2, 1986, and remanded the case for a review of Javette's legal status.

Foster Care PaymentsChild CustodyArticle 78 ProceedingGrandparent RightsNeglect PetitionPlacement OrderAbandoned ChildGovernment Agency ResponsibilityKinship Foster CareRetroactive Payments
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shaw v. Baldowski

Plaintiff Cynthia Shaw initiated an action against her coworker Gregory Baldowski, the New York State Department of Audit and Control, and other State defendants, alongside the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) and its officials. The case stemmed from an alleged disruptive coworker relationship and purported violations of workplace health and safety. The State defendants moved to dismiss several causes of action, and the CSEA defendants cross-moved for partial summary judgment. The plaintiff partially withdrew some claims and clarified others. The court granted CSEA's motion for partial summary judgment regarding allegations of health and safety violations against the union. It also dismissed the plaintiff's 8th cause of action against the State, ruling that she could not pursue claims for PESHA and OSHA violations directly due to specific statutory administrative remedies and the lack of a meritorious breach of duty of fair representation claim against CSEA. Consequently, the plaintiff's 7th cause of action against CSEA was dismissed. Furthermore, the court dismissed the plaintiff's 9th cause of action for retaliation under various state and federal laws, including Civil Service Law § 75-b, Labor Law § 215, and the First Amendment, citing insufficient evidence of adverse personnel action and a failure to meet arbitration requirements. As a result, only the plaintiff's first cause of action against the State for assault and battery remains to proceed.

Workplace harassmentRetaliationBreach of Collective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationPublic Employee Safety and Health Act (PESHA)Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)Civil Service Law § 75-bLabor Law § 215First Amendment retaliationSummary Judgment
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 76 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