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
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. 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

Weintraub v. Spilke

This case concerns an action brought by Local No. 509, a union affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, to restrain defendants Julius Spilke and Sam Spilke from employing individuals who are not union members. The dispute centers on an agreement signed in 1929 by Julius Spilke with Local No. 500, a predecessor to Local No. 509. The defendants contended that Local No. 509 was not a party to the agreement and Sam Spilke was not bound by it. The court determined that Local No. 509 effectively succeeded Local No. 500 and that Sam Spilke, the bakery owner, had ratified his son Julius's actions in signing the agreement, benefiting from its terms and thus making the agreement binding upon him as well. The court found that Julius acted as either the alter ego or agent of his father.

Union AgreementLabor LawContract EnforcementAgencyAlter Ego DoctrineRatificationSuccessor in InterestInjunctionEmployment PracticesTrade Union
References
0
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04454 [219 AD3d 22]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2023

Matter of Afra

Attorney Sam Afra faced four charges of professional misconduct, primarily involving escrow-related issues. The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District filed a petition alleging misappropriation of funds, maintenance of negative escrow account balances, and payment of personal/business expenses from the escrow account. A Special Referee sustained all four charges. The Court considered mitigating factors like personal hardships and remedial actions, but also aggravating factors such as repeated negative balances and unauthorized withdrawals. Ultimately, the Court ordered Sam Afra's suspension from the practice of law for a period of six months, commencing September 29, 2023.

Professional MisconductEscrow Account ViolationsMisappropriation of FundsAttorney SuspensionFiduciary DutyRules of Professional ConductDisciplinary ActionGrievance CommitteeEthical ViolationFinancial Mismanagement
References
1
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 1982

Fulford v. Baker Perkins, Inc.

Sam Fulford, the plaintiff, sought damages for personal injuries (traumatic amputation of fingers) sustained in 1975 from a compound blending machine manufactured by the defendant. The action, filed in 1977, was based on theories of negligence, breach of warranty, and strict products liability. Nearly five years into the litigation, with the trial pending, the defendant moved to amend its answer to include three additional affirmative defenses: lack of privity, failure to state a cause of action due to machine modifications, and Statute of Frauds. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied this motion, citing prejudice to the plaintiff. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding no improvident exercise of discretion, emphasizing the defendant's inordinate delay and the resulting prejudice to the plaintiff's case preparation.

Personal Injury DamagesProducts Liability ClaimNegligence ActionBreach of Warranty DefenseStrict Products LiabilityAmending PleadingsAffirmative Defenses AddedPrejudice to PlaintiffDelay in MotionJudicial Discretion Review
References
7
Case No. ADJ8812554, ADJ9050566, ADJ8818133, ADJ8818138, ADJ8757878, ADJ8848066
Regular
Aug 26, 2014

SAM FOSTER vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration of multiple applications filed by applicant Sam Foster against the County of Sacramento. The WCAB adopted the reasoning of the administrative law judge's report in its decision. The Board also admonished applicant's attorney for failing to include page numbering in their filings. Consequently, all petitions for reconsideration were denied.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetitions for Reconsiderationadministrative law judgedeny reconsiderationapplicant's attorneypage numberingAnswerdefendant's PetitionFRANK M. BRASSMONNIE G. CAPLANE
References
0
Case No. ADJ10222181 (MF) ADJ10222198
Regular
Jan 30, 2019

SAM ALBOUDOOR vs. AMJES, INC. dba K&B FREIGHT SYSTEMS

This case concerns claims for hernias and spine injuries sustained by a truck driver. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the finding that hernias were work-related, noting the medical evaluator's conflicting opinions on causation. The Board determined further medical development is required on the hernia issue due to contradictory expert testimony. Additionally, the issue of reimbursement for self-procured medical treatment was deferred pending the resolution of the hernia claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAMJES INCK&B Freight SystemsSam Alboudoorherniahiatal herniainguinal hernialumbar spinethoracic spinePQME
References
0
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01967 [159 AD3d 1234]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2018

Matter of Brasher v. Sam Dell's Dodge Corp.

David Brian Brasher appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Board had previously affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding that Brasher had a 75% permanent partial disability but suspended awards due to his lack of attachment to the labor market. The Appellate Division's review was confined to whether the Board's denial of reconsideration was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The claimant failed to present newly discovered evidence, a material change in condition, or demonstrate that the Board overlooked issues in its initial determination. The court found no arbitrary or capricious action, noting the claimant's argument for total disability contradicted his own physicians' findings of a 75% permanent partial disability.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLabor Market AttachmentReconsideration ApplicationFull Board ReviewAppellate ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardAbuse of DiscretionJudicial ReviewClaimant Appeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pearl v. Sam Greco Construction Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Monahan & Loughlin, Inc. (M & L), suffered serious injuries after sliding off a roof at a construction site while attempting to access safety equipment. He initiated an action against the general contractor, Sam Greco Construction, Inc., and other entities, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. However, on appeal, the court determined that the safety equipment provided was improperly stored and not adequately placed, constituting a statutory violation that proximately caused the plaintiff's fall. Consequently, the appellate court ruled that the plaintiff's actions could not be the sole proximate cause of his injuries, nor did the recalcitrant worker doctrine apply. The judgment was modified, denying the defendants' motion and granting the plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, leaving only the determination of damages.

Labor Law § 240(1)Construction AccidentWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseComparative NegligenceRecalcitrant Worker DoctrineRoofingFall from Height
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 39 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