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

Malburg v. Keller

Plaintiff commenced a personal injury action following a motor vehicle accident. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and the Supreme Court granted this motion, dismissing the amended complaint. On appeal, the court modified the order by denying the motion in part. It reinstated the amended complaint concerning the significant limitation of use category of serious injury for the plaintiff's cervical spine injury. This modification was based on an independent medical examination report establishing a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentSummary JudgmentSerious InjuryInsurance LawCervical Spine InjuryRange of MotionIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mancuso v. Collins

Plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which had granted summary judgment to defendants John A. Camille, Todd M. Collins, Sharon R. Collins, and a fourth-party defendant in a multi-vehicle personal injury action, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's second amended complaint. The appellate court found that the defendants failed to meet their initial burden to establish that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 [d]. The defendants' own medical submissions indicated serious injuries with objective evidence. Although the defendants met their burden regarding the 90/180 category, the plaintiff successfully raised a factual issue. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously reversed the lower court's decision, denying all motions and cross-motions, and reinstated the second amended complaint.

Personal InjuryMulti-Vehicle AccidentSummary JudgmentSerious Injury ThresholdInsurance Law 5102(d)Appellate ReversalMedical EvidenceRange of MotionObjective EvidenceSpinal Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weaver v. Town of Penfield

Gerald F. Weaver, a paramedic supervisor, and other plaintiffs, sued Penfield Volunteer Emergency Ambulance Service, Inc. and the Town of Penfield for injuries sustained in an ambulance collision. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability and serious injury to Weaver's left shoulder, while defendant cross-moved to dismiss, arguing no serious injury occurred. The Supreme Court initially found triable issues on serious injury. However, the appellate court determined the lower court erred in considering an unalleged injury category and ultimately concluded that defendant had established a lack of serious injury. The appellate court found plaintiffs failed to provide objective medical evidence to support a serious injury claim, particularly regarding the left shoulder, and noted no cervical spine injury was alleged. Consequently, the appellate court granted defendant's cross-motion and dismissed the complaint against the defendants.

Personal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentSerious Injury ThresholdInsurance LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceObjective FindingsShoulder InjuryRange of Motion
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2015

GATTI, SARAHANN v. SCHWAB, RODGER J.

This case involves an appeal from an order denying summary judgment in an action for damages related to serious injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff Sarahann Gatti alleged serious injuries, while the unnamed defendant contended that her spinal injuries were pre-existing from an earlier work-related incident. The Supreme Court's order was modified on appeal, with the appellate court granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the 90/180-day serious injury claim, a category the plaintiff had abandoned. However, the denial of summary judgment for other serious injury categories was affirmed, as the plaintiff successfully raised a triable issue of fact concerning causation through her treating orthopedic surgeon's opinion. The surgeon's testimony attributed Gatti's C6-7 disc injury and the aggravation of pre-existing neck and lower back issues to the accident in question, thus presenting a genuine issue for the trier of fact to resolve.

Motor vehicle accidentSerious injurySummary judgmentCausationSpinal injuriesDisc injuryAggravation of injuryOrthopedic surgeonWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2002

Barreiros v. JJR Associates, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by a third-party defendant following the denial of its motion for summary judgment to dismiss a third-party complaint in a personal injury action. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the motion and dismissing the complaint. The court found that the third-party defendant successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff's injuries, though serious, did not constitute 'grave' injuries under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Additionally, it was established that the third-party defendant had fulfilled the insurance requirements stipulated in the parties' agreement. Therefore, the Supreme Court's initial denial of the summary judgment motion was deemed erroneous.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryAppellate ReviewMotion GrantedOrder ReversedInsurance ComplianceSuffolk County
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Poblet v. Parisi

Plaintiff, Mrs. Poblet, suffered alleged "post-traumatic neurosis syndrome" after a car collision on February 20, 1981, claiming serious injury requiring psychiatric care. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the plaintiff failed to establish "serious injury" under New York's No-Fault Law (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Judge Alan LeVine evaluated whether a solely psychiatric injury could meet the "serious injury" threshold, including whether it constituted a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system" or a non-permanent injury preventing substantially all daily activities for 90 days. The court, citing legislative intent to limit minor injury lawsuits, held that while medically determined, Mrs. Poblet's condition did not prevent her from performing substantially all daily activities for the statutory period. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the complaint.

Summary JudgmentNo-Fault LawSerious Injury ThresholdPsychiatric InjuryPost-Traumatic Neurosis SyndromeAutomobile AccidentInsurance LawCPLR 3212 MotionMedical EvidenceMental Health Impact
References
4
Case No. ADJ1421850 (FRE0216376)
Regular
Aug 17, 2009

BILL CUSTER vs. SARA LEE BAKERY GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a finding of serious and willful misconduct by the employer, Sara Lee Bakery Group. The applicant sustained a knee and groin injury due to a broken bread tray, and the initial finding of misconduct was based on testimony about past practices. However, the Board found no evidence that the employer's executive or managing officers knew serious injury was probable or acted with reckless disregard for consequences. Consequently, the prior award finding serious and willful misconduct was rescinded, and a new decision was issued stating the injury was not caused by the employer's serious and willful misconduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and Willful MisconductLabor Code § 4553Findings and AwardReconsiderationRescindedApplicantDefendantRoute SalesmanIndustrial Injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ3144692 (FRE 0190318)
Regular
Apr 13, 2012

KATHRYN FARPELLA vs. R & L BROSAMER, INC.

This case concerns a claim for increased benefits due to an employer's alleged serious and willful misconduct following a fatal industrial injury. The applicant, widow of the deceased worker, argued the defendant employer failed to adequately support a retaining wall, leading to its collapse and her husband's injury. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the judge's finding that the employer did not engage in serious and willful misconduct. While the employer was aware of soil challenges and in negotiations for solutions, there was no evidence they knew the probable consequence would be serious injury or deliberately failed to act. The employer was actively attempting corrective actions when the incident occurred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and Willful MisconductPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryRetaining WallCollapsing WallRunning SandsSoil ConditionEngineering Challenges
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Outwater v. Ballister

Plaintiff, a carpenter, sustained serious head injuries when struck by a falling roof bracket during the construction of a storage building on property owned by Matthew J. Ballister, who also controlled Sun Frost Farms, Inc., the building's intended user. Plaintiff initiated a personal injury action citing Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and sought a declaration of indemnification from Ballister's homeowner's insurer, Utica Fire Insurance Company. The Supreme Court's initial decisions on summary judgment were challenged, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for plaintiff and Ballister on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) due to unresolved factual issues concerning the building's mixed use and Sun Frost's contractor status. The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim against Ballister and Sun Frost. Additionally, the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment to Utica Fire was reversed, pending further factual determination on the applicability of the policy's "non-business pursuits" exception.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Homeowner's ExemptionMixed-Use PropertyContractor LiabilityInsurance Coverage
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seymour v. Roe

Plaintiffs Beverly A. Seymour, Sylvia N. Macey, and Deborah L. Vaughan brought an action alleging serious injuries from an automobile accident. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs did not sustain serious injuries, relying on plaintiffs' depositions and some medical records. The Supreme Court denied this motion, stating the defendant failed to meet the prima facie burden. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision. The court found that the defendant's submitted evidence, which lacked expert medical testimony to clarify the significance of medical terms and findings or to address causation, was insufficient to establish as a matter of law that the plaintiffs did not suffer serious injuries or that their conditions were solely pre-existing.

Summary JudgmentAutomobile AccidentSerious InjuryCervical Spine InjuryLumbar Spine InjuryDisc HerniationMedical EvidencePrima Facie CaseAppellate ReviewExpert Testimony
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 12,858 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