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

Claim of Sheeley v. Sheeley Septic Service

In 1994, a claimant sustained an injury while working for Sheeley Septic Service and received workers’ compensation benefits. The claimant later sought reduced or lost wage benefits in 2005, arguing that their average weekly wage should include concurrent employment with Thompson Sanitation Corporation. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board both determined that the concurrent employment did not constitute covered employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6), as the claimant, being a sole owner and officer of Thompson Sanitation Corporation, had elected to be excluded from workers’ compensation coverage. The Board's decision was affirmed on appeal, as evidence supported the finding that the claimant had made such an exclusion election, thereby removing their work for Thompson from the scope of the Workers' Compensation Law.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAverage Weekly WageConcurrent EmploymentExecutive Officer ExclusionStock OwnershipInsurance CoverageEmployer LiabilityWage CalculationStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Newman v. Xerox Corp.

Claimant sustained compensable injuries across three incidents in 1984, 1987, and 1988 while employed by Xerox Corporation and Monroe County Septic Service, leading to him ceasing work in 1989. After being classified with a permanent partial disability, he sought classification as totally industrially disabled in 2005, which the Workers’ Compensation Board denied. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the resolution of conflicting medical evidence is within the Board's province. The court found substantial evidence, including a physician's report on work restrictions and a vocational counselor's testimony, supported the finding that the claimant could still be gainfully employed, especially given his failure to provide evidence of a job search for suitable employment.

Total Industrial DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityVocational RehabilitationGainful EmploymentWork RestrictionsMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardClaimant Appeal
References
8
Case No. CA 10-02164
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2011

SIEGL, SALLY v. NEW PLAN EXCEL REALTY TRUST, INC.

Sally Siegl sustained injuries after falling in a parking lot owned by New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc. The fall was allegedly due to a depression in the parking lot caused by settlement of crushed stones used by AALCO Septic & Sewer, Inc., which had repaired a water main two months prior. New Plan brought a third-party action against AALCO for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Supreme Court granted AALCO's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the common-law indemnification claim, finding New Plan also negligent. The majority also affirmed the dismissal of the contribution claim, concluding AALCO did not owe an independent duty of care or launch a force of harm. A dissenting opinion argued that there was a question of fact regarding AALCO creating the dangerous condition, thus precluding summary judgment on the contribution claim.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContributionNegligenceAppellate ReviewWater Main RepairParking LotHazardous Condition
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2000

Claim of Kaufman v. Aquabug International Corp.

Claimant's husband, Bernard Kaufman, suffered a compensable myocardial infarction in 1983 and was classified as permanently, totally disabled. Following his death in 1992, claimant sought compensation, alleging a causal relationship between his death and the prior injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the claim, crediting the employer's medical expert, Carl Friedman, who opined death was due to end-stage cancer, pneumonia, and septic shock, unrelated to the 1983 infarction. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support their conclusion despite conflicting medical opinions presented by claimant's expert.

myocardial infarctioncausation of deathworkers' compensation benefitsmedical expert testimonyconflicting medical evidencesubstantial evidence reviewrenal transplant complicationssepsis pneumoniacardiac arrestpermanent total disability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wightman v. Clinton Tractor & Implement Co.

A claimant sought workers' compensation death benefits after her husband, a mechanic, died from necrotizing fasciitis and septic shock, allegedly due to a work-related fall. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the death causally related to employment, a decision upheld by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing insufficient corroboration for the decedent's statements and improper application of the presumption of compensability for unwitnessed accidents. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding adequate corroboration based on the claimant's observations and medical evidence, and concluding that the Board appropriately weighed conflicting medical opinions regarding the infection's cause.

Death BenefitsCausally Related EmploymentUnwitnessed AccidentPresumption of CompensabilityMedical EvidenceNecrotizing FasciitisSeptic ShockAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionClaimant Testimony
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dwyer v. General Motors LLC

The plaintiff, James Dwyer, a thirty-year experienced automotive technician, was injured when a shock absorber manufactured by General Motors LLC allegedly exploded during repair, amputating a portion of his finger. Dwyer sued General Motors for product liability, alleging design and manufacturing defects. General Motors moved for summary judgment, claiming spoliation of evidence because Dwyer's experts cut open the shock absorber's exterior casing without their consent. The Court denied the summary judgment motion, finding the plaintiff's actions amounted to negligence, not bad faith, but imposed sanctions precluding the plaintiff's experts from testifying about the shock absorber's condition before it was opened and allowing the jury to draw an adverse inference.

Product liabilitySpoliation of evidenceSummary judgmentSanctionsNegligenceAdverse inferenceExpert testimonyShock absorberManufacturing defectDesign defect
References
18
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03458 [172 AD3d 424]
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2019

Cutaia v. Board of Mgrs. of the Varick St. Condominium

The plaintiff, Michael Cutaia, sought partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim after falling from an unsecured ladder due to an electric shock while performing plumbing work. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The appellate court held that the lack of adequate safety devices, specifically an an unsecured ladder, constituted a proximate cause of the fall, regardless of the electric shock, distinguishing the case from precedents involving stable ladders. A dissenting opinion argued against strict liability, contending that without evidence of a defective ladder or that alternative safety devices would have prevented the specific injury caused by the electrical shock, summary judgment was inappropriate.

Labor LawLadder AccidentElectric Shock InjurySummary JudgmentConstruction Site SafetyProximate CausationGravity-Related RiskWorksite InjuryAppellate Division First DepartmentUnsecured Ladder
References
17
Case No. LAO 0803996, LAO 0803995
Regular
Nov 20, 2007

ESTHER SALDANA vs. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant sustained an electrical shock injury while using a malfunctioning sheeter machine at work. Despite prior reports of electrical issues and shocks from the machine to management, the employer failed to properly repair or remove it from use. The Appeals Board reversed the WCJ's decision, finding the employer's actions constituted serious and willful misconduct, entitling the applicant to increased compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and Willful MisconductLabor Code Section 4553Industrial InjuryElectrical ShockSheeter MachineEmployer NegligenceManagerial KnowledgeSupervisor NeglectQuasi-Criminal Conduct
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2015

Glogowski v. County of Orleans

A land surveyor's septic system design for a farmhouse housing migrant workers was denied by Orleans County, which deemed the building commercial and required an engineer's design. Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Supreme Court dismissed. The appellate court reversed, finding the County's interpretation of Education Law § 7208 (n) — concerning a land surveyor's scope of practice for "minor nature" sanitary facilities — to be flawed. The court clarified that the "commercial buildings" exclusion applied to the design of a building, not a septic system, and reinstated the petition, annulling the County's determination. The case was remitted for further proceedings.

Land SurveyorSeptic System DesignProfessional LicenseRegulatory InterpretationArticle 78 ProceedingEducation LawCommercial BuildingResidential UseMigrant Farm WorkersOrleans County
References
3
Case No. 128270
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2025

Saraiva v. New York State Thruway Auth.

Mario Saraiva appealed a judgment from the Court of Claims that dismissed his claim for damages after he sustained injuries from a static electrical shock while working on a New York State Thruway overpass. Saraiva alleged a Labor Law § 241 (6) violation, asserting negligence due to a defective, ungrounded PVC vacuum pipe that had previously caused similar shocks. The Court of Claims, in a nonjury trial, found the defendant not liable. On appeal, Saraiva contended the judgment should be reversed due to several erroneous trial rulings, including the striking of testimony, preclusion of impeachment evidence, and limitations on expert testimony. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that any alleged errors were harmless and did not prejudice a substantial right of the claimant, as the court ultimately considered the relevant evidence.

Workers' CompensationStatic Electrical ShockPVC Vacuum PipeLabor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsHarmless ErrorPrejudicial ErrorWitness TestimonyExpert DisclosureImpeachment
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 92 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