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. 2018 NY Slip Op 06585 [165 AD3d 725]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Simmons v. City of New York

Glenn Simmons, a plumber, was injured while moving a 600-pound air compressor on a pallet jack at a construction site at the North Shore Marine Transfer Station in Queens. The pallet jack allegedly struck concrete debris, causing the compressor to roll off and injure Simmons' ankle. Simmons commenced an action against the City of New York, the Department of Sanitation, and Prismatic Development Corp., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied Simmons' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of Simmons' summary judgment motion on Labor Law § 240(1) and affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 240(1) claims against all defendants, and Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against the City defendants. However, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by denying summary judgment to Prismatic Development Corp. on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding triable issues of fact. It also denied summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-2.2 (d), concluding that the defendants failed to demonstrate its inapplicability or lack of violation, or that a violation was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentElevation DifferentialDangerous ConditionIndustrial Code ViolationPallet Jack AccidentWorkers' SafetyWork Site Hazard
References
34
Case No. 533657
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Mary Lou Simmons

Claimant Mary Lou Simmons sustained a work-related back and right leg injury in 2005, resulting in a 25% permanent partial disability in 2013. She stopped working in 2017 due to chronic pain and was granted a reduced earnings award. Following a lumbar laminectomy in 2018, her condition was assessed by her treating physician, Douglas Petroski, who opined she reached maximum medical improvement and was capable of light work. The Workers' Compensation Board reduced a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding of a 50% loss of wage-earning capacity to 25% and rescinded counsel fees. The Appellate Division affirmed the 25% loss of wage-earning capacity, finding it supported by substantial evidence. However, it reversed the rescission of counsel fees, deeming it arbitrary and capricious, and remitted the matter for further consideration of the fee application.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityCounsel FeesMedical ImprovementLumbar LaminectomyReduced Earnings AwardBoard DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousRemittal
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Callens v. Simmons Machine Tool Corp.

Plaintiff, discharged from Simmons Machine Tool Corporation in 1981 for selling scrap, subsequently sued the company and his union for damages including lost earnings. The defendant employer moved for summary judgment, contending the suit was untimely and lacked merit, a motion initially denied by Special Term. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, finding the plaintiff's action, a hybrid suit alleging breach of a collective bargaining agreement by the employer and breach of the duty of fair representation by the union, was time-barred. The court applied the six-month Federal Statute of Limitations mandated for such cases by the National Labor Relations Act, noting the complaint was filed beyond this period. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint dismissed.

Wrongful terminationBreach of collective bargaining agreementDuty of fair representationStatute of LimitationsSummary judgmentLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActFederal substantive lawAppellate reviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board
References
8
Case No. ADJ 6573721
Regular
May 10, 2018

Douglas Simmons vs. Los Angeles Unified School District

This case involves applicant Douglas Simmons seeking reconsideration of a Stipulation and Award order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration multiple times to ensure applicant received defendant's answer and a chance to respond. Despite receiving applicant's supplemental pleading, the WCAB found no good cause to alter its prior decision. Therefore, the WCAB denied applicant's Petition for Reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation and AwardWCJIn pro perSplit panel decisionVerified letterRescindedSupplemental pleadingProof of service
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simmons-Grant v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Kisshia Simmons-Grant sued her former employer, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, for race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and New York State/City Human Rights Laws. She alleged she received less lucrative work as an African American contract attorney and experienced retaliation after complaining about favoritism and a hostile work environment. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to show an adverse employment action for discrimination or constructive discharge for retaliation. The court found no evidence of an adverse employment action attributable to race-based disparate treatment and that the plaintiff's fear of a co-worker was not objectively reasonable for a constructive discharge claim. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all federal claims and declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Race DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIHuman Rights LawContract AttorneyEmployment DiscriminationDisparate TreatmentConstructive DischargeHostile Work Environment
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Piazza v. Shaw Contract Flooring Services, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority (BMHA), sustained injuries after falling through a hole in an apartment floor while removing trash. BMHA had contracted Shaw Contract Flooring Services, Inc., operating as Spectra Contract Flooring, for flooring work, who in turn subcontracted Gregory Simmons, doing business as Simmons Flooring and Remodeling. After the kitchen floor was noted as "spongy," Simmons cut out portions, creating the hole. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. However, the appellate court modified this by denying those parts of the motions and reinstating the claims, finding defendants failed to establish they did not supervise the work, control the premises, or create/have notice of the dangerous condition. Conversely, the court affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, ruling that the plaintiff's trash removal duties were not connected to construction activities as defined by that statute. The order was thus modified and affirmed.

Personal InjuryNegligenceLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityDangerous ConditionConstruction SafetyWorker InjuryAppellate ReviewSubcontractor Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paley v. Greenberg

Plaintiff Paley, a former Executive Secretary of the defendant Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU), filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful removal from office due to exercising his right to free expression under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). He sought reinstatement, various damages (compensatory and punitive), and injunctive relief. The defendants subsequently demanded a jury trial, which Paley moved to strike. After analyzing relevant precedents including International Bhd. of Boilermakers v. Braswell and Simmons v. Avisco, the court determined that the case was analogous to Simmons, where a jury trial for combined equitable and common law tort claims was deemed proper. Consequently, the court denied Paley's motion to strike the demand for a jury trial.

LMRDALabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActJury TrialFreedom of SpeechUnion AffairsWrongful TerminationReinstatementDamagesLabor LawMotion Practice
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 1998

Rodriguez v. McGinnis

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Section 1983 action against correctional officers McGinnis, Simmons, and Cook, alleging due process violations for an unwarranted 17-day keeplock confinement and Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment due to excessive force by Officer Cook. Magistrate Judge Grubin recommended dismissing claims against McGinnis and Simmons entirely, dismissing the due process claim against Cook, and denying dismissal of the excessive force claim. District Judge Rakoff conducted a de novo review, agreeing that the 17-day keeplock did not constitute an "atypical and significant hardship" under Sandin v. Conner, thus granting dismissal of the due process claim. However, the allegations of Officer Cook kicking and stepping on the plaintiff's back while handcuffed were deemed sufficient to proceed with the excessive force claim, and Cook's qualified immunity defense was denied at the pleading stage for this claim. The Court adopted all recommendations.

Pro Se LitigationCivil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983)Prisoner RightsExcessive ForceDue Process ClaimEighth AmendmentQualified ImmunityKeeplock ConfinementReport and RecommendationMemorandum Order
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 1992

Claim of Simmons v. Moss

Claimant, a babysitter employed by James and Sara Moss, sustained an injury when a defective window fell on her head. The employers had a homeowner's insurance policy with Metropolitan Property Liability Insurance Company, which included a workers' compensation endorsement (H917) for employees working less than 40 hours per week. As the claimant worked 50 hours per week, the Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that she was not covered under this policy. The Board also rejected arguments for coverage based on equitable estoppel or reformation due to mutual mistake of fact. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationHomeowner's PolicyInsurance CoverageEmployee ClassificationH917 EndorsementRegular EmploymentPolicy InterpretationEquitable EstoppelMutual Mistake of FactBoard Decision
References
0
Case No. ADJ9845279
Regular
Aug 22, 2016

ALEX SIMMONS vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the WCJ erred in failing to apply the presumption of industrial causation for "heart trouble" under Labor Code § 3212.5. The Board determined the applicant's hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, developing during his employment as a deputy sheriff, qualified for this presumption, which was not rebutted by the defense. Consequently, the applicant's permanent disability is not subject to apportionment under Labor Code § 4663(e). The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision consistent with this opinion, including revisiting the issue of future medical treatment.

Labor Code section 3212.5Deputy SheriffHeart TroublePresumption of Industrial CausationHypertrophic CardiomyopathyApportionmentLabor Code section 4663(e)Panel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQMECardiovascular System
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 23 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