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
May 25, 2012

Ali v. State

The claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims that dismissed their claim for personal injuries. The incident occurred on February 24, 2009, at the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board office when a security guard, reacting to news of his grandmother's death, punched a wooden bench causing it to fall on the claimant. The claimant subsequently filed a personal injury claim against the State of New York. The Court of Claims granted the defendant's application to dismiss the claim, determining that the security guard was acting solely for personal motives unrelated to his employment, and his conduct was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant, thus precluding vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Personal InjuryRespondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentForeseeabilityEmployee MisconductClaim DismissalCourt of Claims DecisionAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Alli v. Mandel Security Bureau, Inc.

A claimant, working as a security guard at the World Trade Center, suffered an injury on the job due to a fall. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Mandel Security Bureau, Inc. (general employer) and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (special employer) were equally responsible for the claimant's workers' compensation award. The Port Authority appealed this decision, challenging the finding of a special employment relationship. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the existence of a special employment relationship, citing the Port Authority's control over the security guards. Therefore, the Board's decision regarding shared responsibility was upheld.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentEmployment RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewSecurity GuardWorld Trade CenterEmployer LiabilityInjury at Work
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Andrews v. Pinkerton Security

Claimant, a security guard, injured his left knee at work. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, concluding the injury, though occurring in the course of employment, did not arise out of it. This court reversed the Board's determination, emphasizing the statutory presumption under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 [1] that an an injury occurring in the course of employment also arises out of it. The court found the Board failed to provide substantial medical evidence to rebut this presumption, despite a mention of a prior injury. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationCompensable InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentStatutory PresumptionRebuttal EvidenceMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewRemittalLeft Knee Injury
References
5
Case No. ADJ9034489
Regular
May 17, 2016

DEBORAH LARSEN vs. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES

This case involves an applicant who sustained accepted physical injuries and a psychological injury after being struck by a car while working as a security guard. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's psychiatric disability resulted from a "violent act." The Board clarified that "violent act" under Labor Code section 3208.3 is not limited to criminal conduct but includes events involving strong physical force. Therefore, the applicant's psychological injury, stemming from being hit by a vehicle, qualifies for increased permanent disability benefits.

AOE/COEpsychiatric disabilityviolent actLabor Code section 4660.1(c)permanent disabilityapportionmentPetition for ReconsiderationWCJSedgwick CMSSecuritas Security Services
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Day v. Summit Security Services Inc.

The plaintiff, a security guard, brought a retaliation claim under Labor Law § 215 against his former employer, Summit Security Services Inc., and alleged co-employers, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and Kirk Leon. Plaintiff alleged termination resulted from a complaint about underpayment by a prior employer. HHC and Leon moved to dismiss, arguing no right of action, while Summit argued it was not the employer at the time of the protected activity. The court denied HHC and Leon's motion, concluding HHC could be considered 'any other person' under the expanded Wage Theft Prevention Act and was not exempt as a political subdivision. Summit's motion to dismiss was granted, as the court found Labor Law § 215 applied only to employers at the time of the protected activity, and the WTPA did not explicitly extend liability to subsequent employers.

RetaliationLabor Law Section 215Wage Theft Prevention ActWTPAEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationMotion to DismissPrevailing WageSecurity IndustryCo-employer Liability
References
16
Case No. ADJ6678537
Regular
Oct 07, 2011

DOTTIE BRANDON-LEGGET vs. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a security guard's claim for industrial injury to her shoulder and knee. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, affirming the findings of industrial injury and temporary total disability. However, the WCAB reversed the administrative law judge's (ALJ) penalty award under Labor Code §5814, finding that the defendant's delay in paying temporary disability was not unreasonable due to genuine doubt about its liability. The WCAB emphasized that a penalty under §5814 requires unreasonable delay or refusal, and here, the defendant's doubts were not unreasonable given the applicant's delayed treatment and lack of contemporaneous complaints.

Labor Code § 5814Unreasonable DelayTemporary Total DisabilityIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderRight KneeReconsiderationWCJ FindingsGenuine DoubtMedical Treatment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. Colvin

Plaintiff Nikimia Patterson, acting pro se, sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision to deny her claims for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, a motion to which Patterson did not respond. United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein reviewed the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ found that despite Patterson's severe impairments, including knee injuries and headaches, her depression was non-severe, and she retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work with limitations on bending or stooping. The court considered additional medical evidence concerning Patterson's right knee injury, submitted to the Appeals Council after the ALJ's decision, but determined it was not probative enough to warrant a remand, as Patterson's own testimony indicated an active lifestyle even with the injury. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, dismissing the case.

Social Security DisabilitySSIDisability Insurance BenefitsALJ ReviewMedical ImpairmentKnee PainMeniscus TearOsteoarthritisResidual Functional CapacitySedentary Work
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2001

Molina v. Roosevelt Hotel

This case involves an appeal of a denied motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. A security guard, the plaintiff, sued a hotel after sustaining injuries from a slip and fall on the job. The hotel, as the defendant, sought summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law because the plaintiff was a 'special employee' of the hotel. The lower court denied this motion, finding an issue of fact. The appellate court affirmed this denial, citing evidence from the contract between the hotel and the security company (plaintiff's general employer and a third-party defendant), the plaintiff's affidavit, and the hotel's own third-party complaint alleging negligence against the security company. This evidence created a factual dispute regarding the extent of the hotel's control over the plaintiff's work, thus precluding summary judgment.

Personal InjurySlip and FallWorkers' Compensation LawSpecial Employment DoctrineSummary JudgmentIssue of FactContract InterpretationEmployer-Employee RelationshipVicarious LiabilityAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2006

Magadan v. Interlake Packaging Corp.

The plaintiff, a factory worker, sustained personal injuries while operating an S3A 7/8” Book Stitcher, leading to a lawsuit against the manufacturer (Interlake Packaging Corporation), its successor (Samuel Strapping Services), and the seller (Suburban Graphic Supply Corp.). The injury occurred when her finger was caught by the machine's needle due to an improperly adjusted finger guard. Initially, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no design defect. However, the appellate court partially reversed this decision, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding the defendants' failure to provide adequate warnings about operating the machine without proper finger guard adjustment. Furthermore, the court found triable issues concerning the defendants' post-sale duty to warn about safety modifications.

Personal InjuryProducts LiabilityNegligenceDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentAppealFactory Worker InjuryMachine SafetyPost-Sale Duty to Warn
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2011

Kuffour v. Whitestone Construction Corp.

The plaintiff, a security guard, suffered personal injuries when struck by falling bricks at a construction site in Manhattan. He sued the general contractor (defendant) alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, 241 (6) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to serve supplemental bills of particulars. On appeal, the higher court modified the order, granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the Labor Law claims and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion as academic. However, the court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss the common-law negligence claim, finding that the defendant failed to establish it did not create or have notice of the dangerous condition. The plaintiff's cross-appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceConstruction Site AccidentAppellate DivisionPremises LiabilitySecurity GuardFalling ObjectQueens County
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 13,983 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