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

Young v. Norton

Lawrence D. Young (plaintiff) sued Debra J. Norton and Raymond A. Young (defendants) after falling from a ladder while installing gutters on a three-family residence. Plaintiff, who was paid in cash and services, used an unsecured ladder which 'kicked out,' causing him to fall 18 feet and sustain injuries. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants cross-moved to dismiss, arguing they were not 'owners' under the statute. The court determined both defendants, as fee owner (Norton) and life tenant (Young), qualified as 'owners' under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to their interest and control over the property. The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding defendants absolutely liable as the unsecured ladder failed, and denied defendants' cross-motions, concluding the absence of an eyewitness did not preclude summary judgment.

Ladder FallConstruction AccidentLabor Law Section 240(1)Owner LiabilityLife EstateFee SimpleSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyAbsolute LiabilityUnsecured Ladder
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Young v. Suffolk County

Plaintiff Deborah Young, individually and as guardian of her children, sued Suffolk County and various other defendants (County, Young, media, and Quatela defendants). She alleged violations of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1982, 1985, 1986, and state law claims. The claims stemmed from a February 21, 2007 incident where her ex-husband allegedly trashed her home and entered with police without consent, leading to her losing custody of her children. The Court GRANTED summary judgment for all remaining defendants, finding no evidence of state action or conspiracy by private parties and apparent authority for the County defendant's entry. The Court also DENIED the Young defendants' motion for sanctions and DISMISSED state law counterclaims without prejudice.

Section 1983Fourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentCivil RightsWarrantless SearchSummary JudgmentState ActorConspiracyQualified ImmunityApparent Authority
References
87
Case No. No. 44
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2022

The People v. Marc Mitchell

Marc Mitchell, the defendant, appealed his conviction for fraudulent accosting, arguing that the term 'accost' requires a physical, aggressive approach to a specific individual. The New York Court of Appeals rejected this narrow interpretation, stating that dictionaries from the statute's enactment defined 'accost' as 'to approach,' 'speak to first,' or 'address.' The Court found the complaint sufficient, as Mitchell blocked a Manhattan sidewalk with milk crates, requiring pedestrians to walk around him, and asked passing pedestrians to 'Help the homeless,' while allegedly misrepresenting where donations would go. The Court concluded that his actions, including blocking the sidewalk and calling out, constituted accosting. The dissenting opinion argued that the majority's interpretation was too broad, potentially criminalizing protected speech, and that 'accost' implies a more assertive, targeted contact, which was not present in Mitchell's actions. The Appellate Term's order was affirmed.

fraudulent accostingstatutory interpretationNew York Court of Appealsmisdemeanor complaintfacial sufficiencyactus reusmens reaconfidence gamestreet swindlelegislative intent
References
58
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02582
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2021

Matter of Young v. Acranom Masonary Inc.

Claimant Timothy Young established a workers' compensation claim for a back injury and received indemnity benefits, despite his treating physician continuously diagnosing a total temporary disability. Young returned to work for a different employer on April 1, 2019, but failed to disclose this information to any party or the Workers' Compensation Board, continuing to cash compensation checks. The employer's carrier subsequently raised a fraud issue under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, supported by video surveillance showing Young engaged in physical activity. The Workers' Compensation Board found that Young violated § 114-a through misrepresentation and imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties, including a lifetime bar of indemnity benefits. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the finding of a § 114-a violation but reversed the discretionary penalty of permanent disqualification from future wage replacement benefits, deeming it disproportionate to the offense given mitigating circumstances.

Workers' Compensation FraudDisability BenefitsMisrepresentationMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyIndemnity BenefitsReturn to WorkVideo SurveillanceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
10
Case No. 533132
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Frederick Mitchell

Claimant Frederick Mitchell, a certified welder, sustained work-related injuries in two incidents in 2003 and 2004, leading to established workers' compensation claims. Initially found to be permanently partially disabled, Mitchell sought reclassification as permanently totally disabled. However, he was later disqualified from receiving benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a due to misrepresentations about his condition, based on surveillance video evidence. Years later, Mitchell applied to the Workers' Compensation Board to rehear or reopen his claims, citing newly discovered evidence and the interest of justice. The Board denied his application, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityMisrepresentation of ConditionSurveillance Video EvidenceRehearing ApplicationReopening ClaimsAbuse of DiscretionWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aNewly Discovered Evidence
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01365 [203 AD3d 1288]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2022

Matter of Mitchell v. Wastequip, Inc.

Claimant Frederick Mitchell appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his application to rehear or reopen his workers' compensation claims. Mitchell was previously found permanently disqualified from receiving benefits due to misrepresentations about his condition, supported by surveillance video. He sought to reopen the case based on newly discovered evidence and in the interest of justice, over seven years after the initial disqualification. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's denial, concluding that Mitchell failed to provide valid newly discovered evidence supported by affidavits and offered no compelling reason for the significant delay in his application. The court found no abuse of discretion in the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationPermanent DisabilityMisrepresentationSurveillance VideoRehearingReopeningAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionNewly Discovered Evidence
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06839 [165 AD3d 1360]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2018

Matter of Mitchell v. Eaton's Trucking Serv., Inc.

Claimant James Mitchell, a tractor truck driver, filed a workers' compensation claim for injuries to his right hand, wrist, arm, and shoulder, identifying both Eaton's Trucking Service, Inc. (Eaton) and Quality Carrier's, Inc. (Quality) as his employers. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Eaton was Mitchell's general employer and Quality was his special employer, making both 50% liable for benefits. Quality appealed this decision, challenging the special employment finding. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Mitchell was a special employee of Quality, considering factors such as control over work, method of payment, furnishing of equipment, and the nature of the work arrangement between Eaton and Quality.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceTractor Truck DriverOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05123
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2022

Matter of Young v. DiNapoli

Petitioner Keith Young, a court officer, sought accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits after sustaining injuries from a slip and fall at work. He alleged permanent incapacitation from job duties. The Comptroller denied his applications, ruling that his injuries were not the result of an 'accident' as defined by the Retirement and Social Security Law. Following a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Comptroller's determination. The court found substantial evidence to support the conclusion that Young's fall was a mere misstep, an inherent risk of his ordinary employment duties, rather than an unexpected event constituting an accident.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityOrdinary DisabilityCourt OfficerSlip and FallWorkplace InjuryEmployment DutiesMisstepSubstantial EvidenceComptroller's Determination
References
8
Case No. CV-23-1751
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Duane Young

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the apportionment of a workers' compensation award for claimant Duane Young. Young sustained two separate work-related injuries, one in 1971 and another in 2015. The Workers' Compensation Board modified a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling, determining that apportionment was necessary, allocating 80% of the award to the 2015 claim and 20% to the 1971 claim. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial medical evidence, including independent orthopedic examinations and treating physician evaluations that corroborated the apportionment percentages.

ApportionmentPermanent Total DisabilityPrior InjurySubsequent InjuryMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewThird Judicial DepartmentTruck DriverSpinal Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mi-Kyung Cho v. Young Bin Café

The plaintiff, Mi-Kyung Cho, a hostess at Young Bin Café in Flushing, New York, sued her employers, Young Bin Café and Gabin, following a physical assault by a customer in 2008. She alleged negligence, retaliatory discharge under New York and New Jersey anti-discrimination laws, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with business relations and contract. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing all claims. It found that her complaints (a police report and a request for workers' compensation) were not 'protected activity' under the relevant human rights laws, her tortious interference claims lacked merit due to a lack of identified relationships/contracts, and her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was time-barred by New York's one-year statute of limitations.

Retaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentNew York Human Rights LawNew Jersey Law Against DiscriminationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressTortious InterferenceDiversity JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureMagistrate Judge DecisionEmployment Discrimination
References
102
Showing 1-10 of 215 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