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. 2017 NY Slip Op 00956
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Cacanoski v. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC

The plaintiff, Krste Cacanoski, was injured after falling through a skylight during asbestos removal work for 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC. He commenced an action against 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, subsequently initiated a third-party action against Cacanoski's employer, Superior Abatement, Inc., seeking contractual indemnification under a subcontract executed after the accident. The Supreme Court denied both the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law claim and Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order with respect to the plaintiff's motion, granting summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, finding that the absence of necessary protection was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The court affirmed the denial of Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the parties intended the indemnification provision to apply retroactively.

Labor Law § 240(1)Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAsbestos RemovalFall from heightSky-lightContractual IndemnificationRetroactive AgreementWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Appellate Division
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Place v. Ryder

Claimant, who received workers' compensation benefits from a self-insured employer, settled a third-party action. A dispute arose regarding whether the employer had waived its statutory offset rights against the claimant's net recovery from the third-party action, as there was no written agreement. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision, finding that the self-insured employer had reserved its offset rights. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer's attorney's correspondence provided substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that offset rights were explicitly reserved.

Workers' CompensationOffset RightsThird-Party SettlementEmployer's LienStatutory WaiverAttorney CorrespondenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardNew York
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McLeod v. Ground Handling, Inc.

This case addresses whether an accident occurring on a public street, away from the immediate place of employment but near the workplace, arose out of and in the course of employment. The court examined the 'gray area' where risks of street travel merge with employment risks, emphasizing the need for a special hazard at the accident point and a close association of the access route with the premises. The Board found no special hazard on the county road, which was used by the general public and not controlled by the employer. Consequently, the accident was deemed a risk shared by the general public, not related to the claimant's employment. The decision affirming the Board's finding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment was upheld.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentOff-premises AccidentSpecial Hazard RuleStreet RiskGoing and Coming RulePublic RoadAccess RouteEmployer ControlAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2003

Reger v. Harry's Harbour Place Grille, Inc.

Conrad G. Reger, an independent contractor, sustained injuries after falling from an unsecured ladder while applying caulking to a roof at a restaurant operated by Harry's Harbour Place Grille, Inc. on premises leased from Harbour Place Marine Sales, Inc. Plaintiffs commenced an action for damages, asserting claims under Labor Law § 240 (1), § 241 (6), and § 200. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment for both parties on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, citing a factual issue regarding whether Reger was involved in roof repair. The court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim because Reger was not engaged in construction, excavation, or demolition, and the Labor Law § 200 claim due to lack of evidence of defendants' supervision and control. The appellate court affirmed the order without costs.

Ladder FallSummary JudgmentIndependent Contractor InjuryPremises LiabilityRoof Repair AccidentUnsecured LadderLabor Law ClaimsPersonal InjuryAppellate AffirmationConstruction Safety
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Reid v. Coastal Abrasive & Tool Co.

The case involves an appeal from a decision awarding disability benefits to a claimant. The claimant, an inside worker, suffered injuries after slipping and falling on snow and ice on a public sidewalk adjacent to her employer's premises. The employer, as the sole tenant, was contractually responsible for maintaining the sidewalks and removing snow and ice. The Workmen's Compensation Board found that the employer's dominion over the sidewalk area brought the accident within the scope of employment, thus ensuring the claimant's right to safe entry to the building. The court affirmed the decision, with costs awarded to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Premises LiabilitySlip and FallSnow and Ice RemovalEmployer ResponsibilitySafe IngressDisability AwardPublic Sidewalk AccidentCourse of EmploymentWorkers' Compensation Board
References
7
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05748 [198 AD3d 1120]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2021

Matter of Hawkins (A Place for Rover Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Benjamin Hawkins' claim for unemployment insurance benefits. A Place for Rover Inc. (Rover), an online platform for pet services, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that found Hawkins to be an employee. The Appellate Division, Third Department, examined whether an employment relationship existed, focusing on the level of control Rover exercised over its service providers. The court determined that Rover did not exert sufficient control over the providers' services, methods, or outcomes, concluding that providers were independent contractors. Consequently, the Board's determination was reversed.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorGig EconomyPet ServicesOnline PlatformEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewLabor LawStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Haufler v. Cambrook Fabrics Co.

An outside salesman in New York City was injured when he tripped entering a cafeteria for lunch while on his way to a client. The employer and carrier appealed a decision awarding benefits, arguing the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The board found no departure from employment, considering it a reasonable incident for an outside worker. The court, citing Matter of Relkin v. National Transp. Co., affirmed the decision, concluding the meal was sufficiently related to the time and place of work and the promotion of the employer’s business.

Workers' CompensationOutside SalesmanCourse of EmploymentMealtime InjuryAppellate DivisionAccident Arising Out of EmploymentDeviation from EmploymentWork-Related IncidentEmployer LiabilityAffirmed Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williamsbridge Manor Nursing Home v. Local 144 Division of 1199, National Health & Human Services Employers Union

Plaintiff Williamsbridge Manor Nursing Home sought to permanently enjoin an arbitration hearing related to the suspension of its employee, Cynthia Sullivan. The defendant, New York’s Health & Human Services Employers Union 1199/SEIU, AFL-CIO, opposed this motion and cross-moved for summary judgment and/or dismissal. The core issue revolved around whether an obligation to arbitrate survived the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in October 1997, given that the incident leading to Sullivan's suspension occurred in December 1998. The court determined that the dispute did not arise under the expired CBA, nor was there an implied-in-fact agreement to arbitrate post-expiration disputes, as the plaintiff's conduct was inconsistent with implied consent. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff's petition was not moot, despite the arbitration having already taken place, because the court retains power to act until an arbitration award is confirmed. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to permanently enjoin the arbitration was granted, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss for mootness was denied.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementCBA ExpirationImplied-in-fact ContractFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActPermanent InjunctionMootnessEmployee SuspensionJudicial Determination
References
25
Case No. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Case No. ADJ11079458
Regular
Feb 19, 2020

MARCELINO GOROSTIETA (Deceased); REYNA RAMIREZ vs. RANCH OF THE GOLDEN HAWK; EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Judge's finding that the applicant failed to prove serious and willful misconduct by the employer, Ranch of the Golden Hawk. The applicant alleged the employer's gross negligence in hiring an unlicensed contractor who subsequently hired the deceased. However, the Board determined the employer's manager, while careless in relying on a subordinate's recommendation, did not exhibit the required "quasi-criminal" disregard for safety. The evidence did not establish the employer knowingly placed the employee in a situation of obvious and extreme danger, distinguishing it from prior cases.

Serious and Willful MisconductLabor Code section 4553Cal/OSHAwillful blindnessconscious disregardlicensed contractorworker safetyquasi-criminalemployer liabilitynegligence
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 10,765 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