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
Jan 05, 2006

Toussaint v. Angello

The petitioners sought a determination that the respondent, Commissioner of Labor, violated Labor Law § 27-a (4) (b) by not adopting a safety standard recommended by the New York State Occupational Safety and Health Hazard Abatement Board. The Supreme Court denied this petition, and that decision was subsequently affirmed. The appellate court clarified that the statute does not compel the Commissioner to automatically promulgate all Board recommendations. Instead, it mandates consultation and a showing of necessity for any new standard. The Commissioner's decision to return the proposal for further review was therefore deemed a lawful exercise of authority, not arbitrary or capricious.

Labor LawSafety StandardsOccupational SafetyHazard Abatement BoardCommissioner of LaborStatutory InterpretationPromulgation of RegulationsJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawMinisterial Duty
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Irwin v. St. Joseph's Intercommunity Hospital

This case addresses whether a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, predicated on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.24 (d) concerning hot roofing material transporters, is preempted by the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). Plaintiff Charles J. Irwin suffered third-degree burns when a lugger without required safety features spilled hot tar on him during roofing work for Grove Roofing Co., Inc. at St. Joseph’s Hospital. The court concluded that the OSH Act does not preempt the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, citing that no Federal standard directly regulates the specific safety issue addressed by the State regulation (Section 18 (a)) and the OSH Act's savings clause (Section 4 (b) (4)) preserves state common law and statutory tort claims. Furthermore, the court affirmed the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability, noting that a regulatory violation does not automatically establish negligence as a matter of law and that factual issues regarding comparative negligence remain.

PreemptionOSH ActLabor Law 241(6)Workplace SafetyIndustrial CodeRoofing AccidentsHot TarSummary JudgmentState RegulationFederal Preemption
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lazar v. Rochester Acoustical Corp.

This case involves an appeal concerning Andrew Lazar, a worker who sustained injuries when a wheel detached from a hand-propelled cart loaded with sheetrock. Lazar filed a complaint under Labor Law § 241 (6), asserting a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.28 (b), which mandates that wheels on such vehicles be "well secured." The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, concluding that the regulation established only a general safety standard, not a specific directive, referencing *Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co.* The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concurring that the term "well secured" in the regulation constitutes a general safety standard. A dissenting opinion argued that the provision imposes a specific, actionable duty, advocating for the reinstatement of Lazar's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetyHand-Propelled VehiclesIndustrial CodeGeneral Safety StandardSpecific Safety StandardNondelegable DutySupervisory ControlDismissal of ComplaintAffirmative Duty
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rohlehr v. Brookdale University Hospital & Medical Center

Stanley Rohlehr sued Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center alleging four claims: termination in violation of New York Labor Law § 740 and the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of an employee handbook, and violation of public policy. Rohlehr was terminated after filing complaints with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regarding union activities, followed by disciplinary notices for job performance issues. The NLRB dismissed his subsequent complaint, concluding termination was due to unsatisfactory performance. The Hospital moved for summary judgment. The court granted the Hospital's motion, dismissing all claims because the Labor Law § 740 claim did not involve public health or safety, the § 740 filing waived other contractual claims, the FLSA claim did not pertain to FLSA violations, and New York does not recognize a common law cause of action for abusive discharge.

WhistleblowerRetaliationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentLabor LawEmployee RightsEmployment ContractPublic PolicyNational Labor Relations BoardUnion Activities
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1994

Avila v. A. Sam & Sons

This case involved ten Haitian Creole farm workers who sued A. Sam and Sons Produce Company, Inc., Esau Sam, and Robert Sam for alleged violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) during the 1987 tomato and cucumber harvest in Dunkirk, New York. The plaintiffs claimed various breaches concerning housing, disclosure, transportation, record-keeping, and the use of unregistered farm labor contractors. The court found that the defendants intentionally violated AWPA provisions related to housing, transportation, record-keeping, wage statements, and registration by, among other things, allowing workers to reside on premises without adequate safety standards and failing to maintain proper employment records. However, the court did not find the defendants liable for disclosure, false information, or working arrangement violations. Consequently, a judgment for $25,000.00 in statutory damages was entered in favor of the plaintiffs.

Migrant Agricultural Worker Protection Actfarm laborhousing violationstransportation violationsrecord-keeping violationswage statement violationsunregistered contractorsemployer responsibilitystatutory damagesagricultural employers
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cavallaro v. Corning Inc.

Rosario Cavallaro, a former employee of Corning Incorporated, brought an employment discrimination action alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Cavallaro was terminated in 1995 after repeatedly refusing to wear steel-toed safety shoes, a new company requirement based on OSHA standards, citing pain in his right foot. The Court granted Corning's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The court found Cavallaro's claims time-barred as his EEOC charge was filed over 300 days after he knew of the alleged discriminatory conduct, and rejected his "continuing violation" argument. His disparate impact claim was also dismissed for not being reasonably related to his EEOC charge. Furthermore, the court determined Cavallaro failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, concluding that his inability to wear safety shoes did not constitute a "disability" under the ADA, as it did not substantially limit a major life activity like walking or working generally, nor did Corning regard him as disabled. Finally, Cavallaro failed to show pretext for the non-discriminatory reason for his termination (failure to follow safety rules) or establish a causal link for his retaliation claim.

Americans with Disabilities ActEmployment LawDisability DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsEEOC ExhaustionDisparate ImpactSubstantial LimitationMajor Life Activities
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2014

Marquez v. L & M Development Partners, Inc.

The plaintiff, an injured laborer, filed a personal injury lawsuit following a fall at a construction site, alleging Labor Law violations and common-law negligence against multiple parties, including Pro Safety Services, LLC (PSS), a safety consultant. PSS sought summary judgment to dismiss claims against it and for judgment on its own cross-claims. The Supreme Court initially denied PSS's motion. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court granted PSS summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's Labor Law and common-law negligence causes of action against PSS, and also dismissed various contribution and common-law indemnification claims against PSS, finding PSS lacked supervisory control. However, the denials of PSS's motion concerning contractual indemnification and failure to procure additional insured status were affirmed due to PSS's failure to meet its prima facie burden. The order was affirmed as modified on appeal.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law ViolationsCommon Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationSafety ConsultingAppellate ReviewContractual Obligations
References
45
Case No. ADJ9170309
Regular
Nov 03, 2025

Miguel Mosqueda vs. City of Clearlake

Applicant Miguel Mosqueda sought reconsideration of a July 25, 2025 decision which found his injuries were not caused by the employer's serious and willful misconduct or violation of safety orders. Mosqueda, a maintenance worker, suffered catastrophic injuries, including paraplegia, after falling from a ladder while trimming a tree for the City of Clearlake. He contended that the employer violated several Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 sections related to safety, training, and equipment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied the petition for reconsideration, concluding that the employer's actions did not constitute serious and willful misconduct and that no alleged safety violation was the proximate cause of the accident.

Serious and willful misconductPetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderViolation of statuteViolation of safety orderCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3203Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(d)(1)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(e)(15)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(b)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(d)
References
1
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06730
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2018

Morocho v. Boulevard Gardens Owners Corp.

The plaintiff, a construction worker, was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold lacking safety railings while renovating an apartment building owned by Boulevard Gardens Owners Corp. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiff met his prima facie burden by demonstrating a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation due to the absence of safety devices, and a Labor Law § 241 (6) violation because the movable scaffold lacked safety railings as required by 12 NYCRR 23-5.18 (b). The defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentScaffold FallSummary JudgmentLabor LawAppellate ReviewPrima Facie BurdenSafety RailingsProximate CauseWorkplace Safety
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leszczynski v. Town of Neversink

Plaintiff Grzegorz Leszczynski sustained head and back injuries from a falling frozen stone while working in a trench, leading him and his wife to sue IMS Safety, Inc., a safety consultant, under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The jury found IMS Safety, Inc. liable under Labor Law § 241 (6) for failing to ensure workplace safety by allowing elevated loads over workers, a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.4 (h) (5). Damages were awarded to plaintiffs for medical expenses, lost earnings, and pain and suffering. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence that IMS Safety, Inc. acted as an agent of the general contractor and violated specific Industrial Code provisions, and that the damages award was reasonable.

Construction Site InjuryLabor Law ViolationFalling Object AccidentWorkplace SafetySafety Consultant NegligenceIndustrial Code CompliancePersonal Injury DamagesAppellate AffirmationAgent LiabilityHerniated Disc
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 6,901 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