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 30, 2000

Stein v. Beaver Concrete Breaking Co.

Stuart Stein appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to Beaver Concrete Breaking Co., Inc., dismissing his personal injury complaint. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, citing that a person can have both a general and special employer for Workers' Compensation Law purposes. Since Stein received workers' compensation benefits from his special employer, JAB Construction, Inc., and Beaver was determined to be his general employer, Beaver was shielded from the lawsuit under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 10, 11, and 29 [6].

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationTort LawNew York Law
References
3
Case No. ADJ9073927
Regular
Oct 08, 2015

CHRISTOPHER EASTWOOD (Deceased), MARGARET EASTWOOD (Widow) vs. COOPER CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denying serious and willful misconduct. The applicant's widow argued the employer's negligence caused her husband's death from heat exposure due to inadequate precautions. However, the Board found the evidence did not support serious and willful misconduct, citing the employer's provision of shade, water, and frequent breaks. Furthermore, the petition for reconsideration itself was procedurally flawed by being unverified and single-spaced.

Serious and willful misconductheat exposureAOE/COEWCJPetition for ReconsiderationCal/OSHALabor Code section 4553employer liabilityburden of proofquasi-criminal nature
References
8
Case No. ADJ7622993
Regular
Mar 23, 2012

William Wong vs. The Home Depot, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Helmsman Management Services

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied William Wong's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report which found Wong's testimony lacked credibility due to inconsistencies regarding his legal and substance abuse history. While the WCJ acknowledged a potential psychotic break, it was deemed not industrially caused, thus rebutting the presumption of compensability.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationWCJGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.ADJ7622993THE HOME DEPOTLIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICESLabor Code Section 5402presumption of compensability
References
4
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. ADJ1468790 (RIV 0078105)
Regular
Feb 21, 2014

AUSTREBERTO FLORES, EFIGENIA FLORES vs. CARSON CAPITAL CORPORATION, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the administrative law judge's finding that applicants failed to prove a serious and willful violation or safety violation causing the decedent's death. The WCJ found the employer had no knowledge of the cart's mechanical issues, deeming the throttle spring break a spontaneous event. The Board upheld this, giving more weight to the credible testimony of the employer and defense witness over unsworn hearsay statements from co-employees not produced for cross-examination. A dissenting commissioner argued for further development of the record, noting consistent employee statements suggesting employer knowledge of mechanical problems and failure to act.

Serious and willful violationSafety violationDeath benefitsCompromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCompetent hearsayDeposeCross-examinationCredibility findings
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02750
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2022

Matter of Jaque A. (Dana M.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court finding that respondent mother, Dana M., neglected her child, Jaque A. The neglect finding was based on the mother's failure to seek treatment for a serious mental illness, schizophrenia, which placed the child at imminent risk of harm. Evidence included a prior neglect proceeding, an involuntary commitment for a psychotic disorder in Montana, and a lack of compliance with prescribed mental health treatment after returning to New York. The mother also denied her mental illness and previous ACS involvement, further supporting the court's decision. This ruling emphasizes the parent's responsibility to manage mental health conditions to ensure a child's safety and well-being.

Child NeglectMental IllnessParental RightsSchizophreniaInvoluntary CommitmentRisk of HarmTreatment Non-ComplianceFamily LawAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jason B.

The case involves a petition by the Commissioner of Social Services to adjudicate 9-month-old Jason B. and his two siblings as neglected children. The respondent mother made threats to harm her children, stating she would "take the children with her" and asking "What do I have to do to get help, something stupid like dangling one of my kids over the ferry?". The court found that these threats, coupled with the mother's history of mental illness, including diagnoses of "Schizophrenia with Borderline Features" and "Major Depression, Recurrent with Psychotic Features", established an imminent danger to the children. The court ruled that evidence of present or past harm is not required when a parent exhibits a capacity to carry out serious threats, thereby adjudicating the children neglected. They were continued on remand to the Commissioner of Social Services pending a dispositional hearing.

Child NeglectParental ThreatsMental IllnessImminent DangerFamily Court ActChild ProtectionSchizophreniaMajor DepressionPreponderance of EvidenceRisk of Harm
References
8
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 1980

In re the Claim of Cruz

The claimant, an assistant engineer at a nursing home, was discharged for leaving the premises for a meal break in violation of employer policy, despite a prior warning. The employer required the claimant to remain on-site during breaks as he worked alone on a night shift and needed to be available for emergencies. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially found the employer's rule invalid based on its interpretation of Labor Law § 162 (subd 4), determining the claimant's actions did not constitute disqualifying misconduct. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, holding that Labor Law § 162 (subd 4) does not dictate the location of a meal break and that the employer's policy, especially with compensated breaks, was reasonable. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

MisconductUnemployment InsuranceMeal Break PolicyEmployer RulesStatutory InterpretationLabor LawAdministrative Law JudgeAppeal BoardNursing Home EmployeeTermination
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gordon v. Kaleida Health

Six plaintiffs, including registered nurses and respiratory therapists, initiated a putative collective/class action against Kaleida Health and its associated entities. They alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law concerning unpaid wages, overtime, and improper meal break deductions. The court addressed four motions: plaintiffs' class certification requests for meal break and rounding policies, and both parties' summary judgment motions. The judge denied all of the plaintiffs' motions and granted the defendants' motions, striking the rounding class certification, denying the meal break class certification, and largely granting summary judgment to Kaleida regarding certain NYLL claims for three plaintiffs. The court found no evidence of a uniform system-wide policy for wage violations and upheld the employer's right to delegate reporting procedures for missed meal breaks.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawClass ActionWage and Hour DisputeOvertime PayMeal Break PolicyRounding PolicySummary JudgmentClass CertificationHourly Employees
References
59
Showing 1-10 of 516 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