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. 2022 NY Slip Op 01758 [203 AD3d 531]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2022

Valentine v. 2147 Second Ave. LLC

Michael Valentine, a project safety coordinator for Homeland Safety Consultants, sued 2147 Second Avenue LLC and other defendants for injuries sustained at a demolition and construction site. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted summary judgment to defendants Gary Silver Architects, P.C. and Sunshine Quality Construction, Inc., dismissing the complaint against them, and denied Valentine's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding no evidence of affirmative negligence by GSA and concluding that Sunshine was not on site as a general contractor until after the accident. The court also upheld the denial of Valentine's Labor Law claim, noting it was never properly pleaded in his complaints.

Demolition ProjectConstruction AccidentProject Safety CoordinatorSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240 (1)Affirmative NegligenceGeneral Contractor LiabilityPleading AmendmentsAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04821
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2023

Liu v. Whitestar Consulting & Contr., Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a prior order concerning a construction site accident where plaintiff Noah Liu fell 20 to 25 feet from an unguarded plywood ramp. The court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendants Moinian, Newmark, and Whitestar Consulting & Contracting, Inc. It was determined that the ramp, spanning a significant height differential and lacking safety devices, fell under the purview of Labor Law § 240 (1). Consequently, the defendants' motions to dismiss this claim were denied, and the plaintiffs were awarded summary judgment as to liability. Claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence were deemed academic in light of this ruling.

Construction accidentLabor Lawunguarded rampfall from heightsummary judgmentAppellate Divisionpersonal injurypremises liabilityelevation differentialsafety devices
References
8
Case No. ADJ11328275
Regular
Dec 10, 2018

DENISE DOYLE vs. TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS) INC., ALLMERICA FINANCIAL BENEFIT INSURANCE COMPANY, HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP

The defendant sought reconsideration of an order allowing the applicant to consult a second physician within the employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The defendant argued that the MPN physician's release from care was not a dispute over diagnosis or treatment, and Labor Code sections 4061 and 4062, requiring medical-legal evaluations, applied instead. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition, finding it was not taken from a final order as it did not determine substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also noted that even if considered on its merits, the petition would be denied because Labor Code Section 4616.3 and Administrative Director Rule 9785(b)(3) allow an employee to seek a second opinion within the MPN when disputing a release from care.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationMedical Provider NetworkMPNLabor Code Section 4616.3Second Physician ConsultMedical-Legal EvaluationFinal OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityThreshold Issue
References
4
Case No. ADJ6575307
Regular
Jan 21, 2011

NANCY ANDREWS vs. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH REYNOLDS, OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant who sustained industrial injuries to her back and upper extremities. The defendant sought reconsideration of a prior award, arguing they were not obligated to conduct utilization review or obtain a second opinion regarding a spinal surgery recommendation from Dr. Anderson. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding the defendant failed to timely object or initiate the required processes after Dr. Anderson recommended the same surgery previously suggested by a second-opinion physician. The Board clarified that utilization review and second opinion obligations extend to any physician's treatment recommendations, not solely the primary treating physician.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPrimary Treating PhysicianUtilization Review (UR)Second Opinion ProcessLabor Code Section 4062
References
1
Case No. CV-23-1672
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Jozo Vujeva

Jozo Vujeva, a mechanic, sustained shoulder injuries in March 2021, leading to a workers' compensation claim. His physician assessed a 40% schedule loss of use (SLU) for the right arm and 30% for the left, while the carrier's consultant found a 34.5% SLU for the right arm and 27% for the left. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the carrier's consultant's findings, rejecting the claimant's physician's report due to non-compliance with 2018 guidelines regarding goniometer use and repeat ROM measurements. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board was entitled to discount the claimant's physician's opinion due to methodological deficiencies and to credit the carrier's consultant's findings, which were supported by substantial evidence.

schedule loss of useshoulder injurymaximum medical improvementrange of motiongoniometer usageWorkers' Compensation Board decisionAppellate Division reviewmedical evidence admissibilityexpert medical opinionevidentiary support
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Evans v. Jewish Home & Hospital

Claimant, a food service supervisor, sustained work-related injuries in December 1996 and March 1997, subsequently ceasing work in May 1997, nine days before his 62nd birthday, and retiring in August 1997. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim for benefits, ruling he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. This Court previously reversed and remitted, stating that the absence of medical advice to retire was not, by itself, controlling. On remittal, the Board again denied benefits, citing claimant's retirement at age 63 without physician consultation. This Court found the Board's factual findings regarding claimant's age and medical consultation incorrect, as he was 61 upon retirement and had received regular chiropractic care. Consequently, the Court reversed the Board's decision for a second time and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Voluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketWorkers' Compensation BenefitsRemittalFactual ErrorAppellate ReviewChiropractic CareRetirement AgeWork-Related InjuriesSubstantial EvidenceCredibility Determination
References
4
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07295
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2025

Morales v. 88th Ave. Owner, LLC

The plaintiff, Elihu Romero Morales, was injured at a construction site in Queens when struck in the eye by a spark from ironwork. He sued 88th Avenue Owner, LLC, and NY Developers & Managers, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The defendants then initiated a second third-party action against subcontractors Feinstein Iron Works, Inc., and Construction Realty Safety Group, Inc., for contribution and indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed the second third-party complaint with prejudice. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified this order, denying the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, awarding summary judgment to the defendants on the Labor Law claims, and directing the dismissal of the second third-party complaint without prejudice due to a four-year delay in its commencement. The Court found Labor Law § 240(1) inapplicable as sparks are not objects requiring securing for elevation-related hazards, and 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a) inapplicable as the plaintiff was not directly engaged in the eye-endangering operation.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentElevation-Related HazardThird-Party ActionDismissal Without PrejudiceSparksEye InjurySubcontractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
22
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05756 [209 AD3d 495]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2022

Lopez v. 157-161 E. 28th St., LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning the dismissal of second third-party claims for breach of contract, unpaid overtime wages, and breach of constructive trust related to a construction project. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, determining that New Wave Contracting Corp., a subcontractor, was the direct employer of the individual second third-party plaintiffs, not the general contractors Iceberg Developing Co., LLC and Forkosh Construction Co., Inc. The court also found that signed lien waivers and releases by the individual second third-party plaintiffs validly barred their wage and contract claims, as payment was accepted without objection. Furthermore, constructive trust claims were correctly dismissed due to the lack of contractual privity between the individual second third-party plaintiffs and the general contractors.

Construction ProjectSubcontractor LiabilityWage ClaimsLien LawSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipContractual PrivityRelease WaiverAppellate ReviewThird-Party Claims
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pizzo v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Kathleen Pizzo appealed the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's final determination denying her disability insurance benefits. The District Court reviewed the ALJ's decision, which had assigned no weight to the treating physician's opinion and significant weight to a consulting physician's report. The court found that the ALJ erred by failing to give appropriate weight to the treating physician's opinion, not adequately developing the administrative record to obtain missing medical notes, and giving undue weight to the consulting physician's report which did not explicitly support the capacity for sedentary work. Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with the District Court's decision, granting the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent of the remand and denying the Commissioner's cross-motion.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkMedical EvidenceRemandSubstantial EvidenceRecord Development
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Domino v. Professional Consulting, Inc.

Gregory Domino, a carpenter employed by Carlin Contracting Co., Inc., was injured while working on a Village of Mount Kisco water treatment facility, allegedly due to the installation of floor panels hoisted by a crane owned by Smedley Crane Service, Inc. He and his wife commenced an action for personal injuries against Professional Consulting, Inc. (PCI), the construction manager, and Smedley. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to PCI, finding it was not a "contractor" or "owner" under Labor Law sections 240(1) or 241, nor liable under Labor Law section 200 or common-law negligence due to lack of supervisory authority. The appellate court affirmed this part of the decision, noting PCI's contracts expressly precluded it from supervising the work or safety procedures. However, the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to Smedley, as Smedley failed to establish it lacked authority to control or supervise the crane's rigging activity, thus the appellate court reversed that portion of the decision.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentReargumentConstruction Manager LiabilityCrane OperationWorker SafetyAgency LawStatutory LiabilityPremises Liability
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 3,493 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