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. ADJ3333134 (OXN 0130576) MF ADJ1434344 (OXN 0130577)
Regular
Oct 08, 2013

MARYANN HANSEN vs. SAM'S CLUB, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY as administered by YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to Sam's Club's petition after an order was issued to pay a $\$12,504.04$ lien without a hearing. While a proof of service indicated Sam's Club was notified of the lien conference, the Board found that Labor Code section 5506 requires a hearing if a defendant fails to appear or object, not a default. Therefore, the previous order was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level for a hearing on the merits of the lien claim. The trial judge may also consider sanctions against the defendant for their non-appearance and failure to object.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ConferenceNotice of Intention to Allow LienDue ProcessProof of ServiceElectronic Adjudication Management SystemLabor Code Section 5506Substantial JusticeDisposition on Merits
References
9
Case No. ADJ8616799
Regular
Aug 16, 2013

STEPHANIE LLAMAS vs. SAM'S CLUB, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, Administered By YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by a party in the matter of Stephanie Llamas vs. Sam's Club. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing this petition. The dismissal is due to the petitioner's voluntary withdrawal of the petition. Therefore, the Board has formally closed the reconsideration process for the June 14, 2013 decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalWithdrawnStephanie LlamasSam's ClubAce American InsuranceYork Insurance Services GroupWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ8616799Oxnard District Office
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 1997

Sam v. Town of Rotterdam

Plaintiff Sien Sam, a brake technician, was injured on February 2, 1993, when a police vehicle owned by the defendant experienced brake failure at Salisbury Chevrolet, Inc. Sam's complaint alleged derivative liability of the defendant as the vehicle owner and negligence for failing to disclose the vehicle's dangerous braking system. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint, leading to the plaintiffs' appeal. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, noting that objections to the technical form of a supporting deposition must be preserved at the trial level. Furthermore, the court found plaintiffs failed to present evidence identifying the cause of the brake failure or demonstrating the defendant's knowledge of the defect.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIssue PreservationEvidentiary RulesAffidavit RequirementVehicle NegligenceBrake FailureOwner LiabilityDuty to Warn
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06738 [210 AD3d 572]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2022

Aguilera v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.

Plaintiff, Anneldy Aguilera, was injured after slipping on an unidentified wet substance in the women's restroom at a BJ's Wholesale Club store. The defendant, BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition. A maintenance worker's testimony of regular, twice-hourly inspections and cleaning of the bathroom was presented as prima facie evidence. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the defendant's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact and that a timeframe of four to thirty minutes was insufficient to establish constructive notice.

Premises liabilitySlip and fallSummary judgmentConstructive noticeActual noticeMaintenanceBathroom accidentAppellate affirmanceWet substanceHazardous condition
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Severino v. Schuyler Meadows Club, Inc.

Peter Severino, an injured worker, and his wife, Patricia Severino, filed suit after Peter sustained injuries at a construction site in Colonie, Albany County. The site was owned by Schuyler Meadows Club, Inc. and Schuyler Meadows Country Club, Inc., with Barry, Bette & Led Duke, Inc. (BBLD) as the general contractor. Peter was injured when a ladder he was using shifted and an angle iron fell, striking him. The complaint alleged negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200(1), 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court granted a directed verdict against Schuyler and BBLD for violating Labor Law § 240(1), dismissed claims against Schenectady Steel Company, Inc., and denied BBLD's motion against Brownell Steel, Inc. The jury found BBLD 20% liable and Brownell 80% liable. The judgment and order were affirmed on appeal.

Construction Site AccidentLadder FallFalling ObjectLabor Law ViolationsDirected VerdictIndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
16
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04775
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2015

Smith v. Girls Club of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of plaintiff Mark A. Smith's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Girls Club of New York. Smith was injured while voluntarily participating in a community service program. The court found that Smith failed to establish he was an "employee" entitled to the protections of Labor Law § 240 (1), a prerequisite for his claim. His reliance on the Workers' Compensation Law was deemed unavailing, and new evidence submitted did not alter the determination. The court concluded that Smith was not employed by an agent of the defendant.

Labor Law § 240(1)Community Service ProgramEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewVoluntary ParticipationPersonal InjuryScope of EmploymentJudiciary Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rubeis v. Aqua Club, Inc.

Aldo Rubeis was injured after falling from a ladder while installing a steel cupola, sustaining a brain injury. He sued Aqua Club, Inc., who then impleaded Rubeis's employer, Venezia Iron Works, Inc., alleging a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Supreme Court denied Venezia Iron Works' motion to dismiss, and a jury found Rubeis sustained a grave injury. Venezia Iron Works appealed. The Appellate Division reviewed the definition of "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, specifically "permanent total disability" in the context of brain injury cases. The Court concluded that Rubeis's injuries, despite their severity, did not meet the "narrowly defined" standard for grave injury based on prior precedents, which focus on day-to-day functions rather than just employability. Therefore, the Appellate Division reversed the judgment, granted Venezia Iron Works' motion, and dismissed the third-party complaint.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Permanent Total Disability DefinitionBrain Injury SeverityCommon Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimThird-Party Action DismissalAppellate Review StandardsStatutory InterpretationEmployer Liability Exemption
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04901 [208 AD3d 560]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2022

Flores v. Crescent Beach Club, LLC

Plaintiff Robert Flores sustained injuries while demolishing a wooden pergola and subsequently filed two personal injury actions, later consolidated, against Crescent Beach Club, LLC and Lad Creative, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Lad Creative, Inc. appealed a Supreme Court order denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order. It found that Lad Creative failed to establish, prima facie, that it was not a general contractor or agent under Labor Law § 240 (1), thus affirming the denial of summary judgment for that specific claim. However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) causes of action, concluding that Lad Creative had shown the inapplicability of Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (c) for the § 241 (6) claim and that it lacked authority to supervise or control the work for the common-law negligence and § 200 claims.

Personal InjuryDemolition AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor LiabilityWorkplace SafetyAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. 2 NY3d 787
Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Underwriters Insurance v. City Club Hotel, LLC

The New York Court of Appeals addressed two certified questions from the Second Circuit regarding an insured's right to recover attorneys' fees. U.S. Underwriters Insurance Company had sought a declaratory judgment against its insureds, City Club Hotel, LLC and Shelby Realty, LLC, to deny coverage for a personal injury claim. The insurer's disclaimer of coverage was found untimely. The Court held that an insured who prevails in an insurer-initiated declaratory judgment action to deny coverage may recover attorneys' fees, irrespective of whether the insurer initially provided a defense in the underlying suit. This decision underscores that the insurer's duty to defend extends to litigation arising from its attempts to avoid policy obligations. The Court answered the first certified question in the affirmative for Shelby.

Declaratory Judgment ActionAttorneys' FeesInsurer Duty to DefendInsurance CoverageUntimely DisclaimerPrevailing PartyCertified QuestionSecond CircuitNew York Court of AppealsPolicy Obligations
References
6
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02325 [227 AD3d 722]
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2024

Matter of Sierra Club v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, the Sierra Club appealed a judgment that denied their petition to annul a water withdrawal permit. The permit was granted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to Helix Ravenswood, LLC, allowing them to withdraw water from the East River for a thermoelectric generating station's cooling system. The petitioners argued that the DEC failed to comply with the Water Resources Protection Act (WRPA) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not adequately assessing alternative cooling systems or the impact on aquatic life. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the DEC took a "hard look" at environmental concerns and provided a reasoned basis for its determination, thus acting neither arbitrarily nor capriciously.

Environmental LawWater Withdrawal PermitSEQRAWRPAAppellate ReviewAdministrative AgencyJudicial ReviewCooling SystemEast RiverLong Island City
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 222 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