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. 2015 NY Slip Op 09604
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2015

Maggio v. 24 West 57 PFF, LLC

Plaintiff Joseph Maggio, a drywall installer, was injured after falling from a scaffold staircase at a premises owned by 24 West 57 APF, LLC and leased by Ana Tzarev New York, LLC (ATNY). The scaffold, constructed by Atlantic Hoist & Scaffolding, LLC, had a modified staircase with plywood covering some steps, lacking anti-slip protection and having an irregular rise. Plaintiff attributed his fall to these conditions and the presence of construction debris. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment motions from defendants 24 West and ATNY, citing outstanding discovery, and later denied renewed motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division found 24 West and ATNY justified in bringing the second motion but denied their request for summary judgment on negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims due to factual questions regarding notice of the dangerous condition. The court also denied plaintiff's untimely cross-motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, granting ATNY conditional contractual indemnification against R&R, and otherwise affirmed the decision.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Common-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationScaffold AccidentConstruction Site InjuryPremises LiabilityAppellate Procedure
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raul Rivas v. Southwest Key Programs, Inc.

This wrongful discharge case addresses the timeliness of Raul Rivas's lawsuit against Southwest Key Programs, Inc. Rivas claims he was terminated on September 24, 2010, after being injured on the job and filing a worker's compensation claim, leading to alleged discrimination and a hostile work environment in violation of the Texas Labor Code. Southwest Key moved for summary judgment, arguing the suit was barred by a two-year statute of limitations, citing Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) documents indicating Rivas filed for unemployment benefits on September 19, 2010, implying an earlier termination date. Rivas countered with an affidavit asserting he was suspended on September 19 but not officially fired until September 24. The appellate court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding the accrual date of the termination and hostile work environment claims due to conflicting evidence between Rivas's affidavit and TWC records. Consequently, the trial court's grant of summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

wrongful dischargestatute of limitationssummary judgmenthostile work environmentTexas Labor Codeworker's compensationaccrual dateconflicting evidenceappellate reviewremand
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2002

This Discovery Order, arising from consolidated actions related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, addresses disputes between the Ashton and Burnett plaintiffs and defendant National Commercial Bank (NCB). Magistrate Judge Maas ruled on the scope of limited jurisdictional discovery concerning NCB's contacts with the United States, an alleged 1998 audit, and customer bank records. The court granted discovery for a six-year period preceding the lawsuits regarding NCB's U.S. presence and ordered NCB to investigate and produce any existing 1998 audit. However, requests for underlying audit documents and specific customer bank records tied to Al Qaeda were denied due to an insufficient prima facie showing of conspiracy.

Discovery DisputeJurisdictional DiscoveryPersonal JurisdictionForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFSIAMinimum ContactsConspiracy TheorySeptember 11 AttacksNational Commercial BankSaudi Arabian Banks
References
16
Case No. 21 MC 101, 04 Civ. 7272(AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2007

In Re September 11 Property Damage

This opinion addresses the legal sufficiency of third-party actions filed by Seven World Trade Company, L.P. and Silverstein Properties, Inc. (Silverstein), owners and developers of 7 World Trade Center, seeking indemnification and contribution. Silverstein, who was both a plaintiff and defendant in various lawsuits following the September 11, 2001, destruction of 7WTC, brought claims against OEM Design and Construction Defendants, Citigroup Design and Construction Defendants, and engineers Irwin Cantor and Syska. The court granted motions to dismiss from all third-party defendants. It found OEM defendants immune under the New York State Defense Emergency Act, Citigroup defendants protected by Silverstein's prior assumption of risk, and Irwin Cantor and Syska dismissed for failure to meet heightened pleading standards for licensed design professionals.

September 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterProperty DamageBusiness LossThird-Party LitigationIndemnificationContributionMotions to DismissSDEA ImmunityAssumption of Risk
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Salvet v. Union Carbide Linde Division

Claimant sustained two compensable injuries, leading to a permanent partial disability classification in 1983 with a nonschedule award of $95 per week. Subsequently, in 1984, the claimant was diagnosed with a 24.2% occupational binaural hearing loss, resulting in a schedule award of $105 per week for 36.3 weeks. The Workers' Compensation Board, following an application by the carrier, reduced this schedule award to $10 per week. This reduction was based on Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a), which sets a maximum of $105 per week for compensation for permanent or temporary partial disability, indicating that the aggregate of both awards should not exceed this statutory limit. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the statutory maximum applies to the total of all permanent partial disability awards, irrespective of whether they are schedule or nonschedule awards.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityOccupational Hearing LossSchedule AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory MaximumAggregate AwardsWorkers' Compensation Board AppealStatutory InterpretationConcurrent Awards
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05584
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

Alvarado v. SC 142 W. 24 LLC

Plaintiff Angel Alvarado, injured in a slip and fall in an excavation pit, appealed an order from the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the original order. The court denied Alvarado's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, ruling that the excavation pit was not a work area contemplated by the Industrial Code. It also dismissed his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding no elevation-related risk. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims due to factual disputes. Furthermore, the court conditionally granted the defendants' third-party contractual indemnification claim against Sky Materials, the plaintiff's employer.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationIndustrial CodeExcavation PitSlip and FallAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentNegligencePremises Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2002

Johnson v. Shelmar Corp.

Claimant suffered work-related injuries in 1993, leading to a settlement approved on September 12, 2001, under Workers’ Compensation Law § 32. The settlement funds were mailed on September 24, 2001. Claimant sought a 20% penalty, arguing the payment was late according to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f) and 12 NYCRR 300.36 (g), as it exceeded the 10-day period post-approval. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this penalty. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, applying General Construction Law § 25-a (1), which extends deadlines falling on a Saturday to the next business day, thus making the September 24th payment timely. The court also noted that the Board could have exercised discretion to waive the deadline due to the operational disruptions caused by the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.

Late Payment PenaltyWorkers' Compensation SettlementStatutory Deadline ExtensionGeneral Construction LawRule DiscretionSeptember 11 Attacks ImpactTimeliness of PaymentAdministrative HearingWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

24 Hour Fuel Oil Corp. v. Long Island Rail Road

The case involves 24 Hour Fuel Oil Corp. suing Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) after LIRR canceled its lowest bid for a diesel fuel supply contract and re-bid the contract. 24 Hour sought summary judgment and a permanent injunction, arguing LIRR violated federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 18.36) by not awarding to the lowest bidder. Defendants cross-moved, claiming lack of federal jurisdiction. The court ruled that 24 Hour did not possess a private right of action under the cited federal regulation. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Summary JudgmentFederal Question JurisdictionPrivate Right of ActionContract BiddingProcurement RegulationsFederal Transit Administration (FTA)State Law ClaimsSupplemental JurisdictionGovernment ContractsBid Protest
References
23
Case No. CV-24-1068
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Lynn Pandolfi

The Appellate Division reversed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying counsel fees to Grey & Grey, LLP. The law firm had represented Lynn Pandolfi in her workers' compensation claim but was relieved due to a breakdown in communication. The WCLJ and the Board denied fees, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 24 (3), which they interpreted to preclude fees when a prior attorney is not substituted by new counsel. The Appellate Division clarified that § 24 (3) applies to fee allocation between substituted attorneys and does not bar fees for an un-substituted attorney. The court remitted the matter for the Board to determine fees based on services rendered, considering the claimant's financial state.

Counsel FeesWorkers' Compensation Law § 24Statutory InterpretationAttorney-Client RelationshipSubstitution of CounselWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewRemittalLegal RepresentationUnrepresented Claimant
References
3
Case No. CV-24-0199
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Racquel C. Olivier

Claimant Racquel C. Olivier, a correction officer, sustained work-related injuries in April 2022. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, awarded temporary total disability benefits, and approved counsel fees for claimant's attorney as a lien against the employer's reimbursement award. The employer's carrier challenged the counsel fees, arguing they were improperly placed as a lien against reimbursement without an increase in compensation under Workers' Compensation Law § 24 (2) (b). The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, holding that the WCLJ's initial awards constituted an increase in compensation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that the initial awards were an increase under WCL § 24 (2) (b), thus justifying the counsel fees as a lien against the carrier's reimbursement.

Workers' Compensation BoardCounsel FeesLienEmployer ReimbursementTemporary Total DisabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 24Appellate ReviewProcedural HistoryStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Law
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,562 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