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

Wagner v. Wody

The plaintiff, Russell Wagner, a sanitation worker, was injured by a shard of glass while collecting garbage from the defendants' home. He sued Janice and Jerry Wody for personal injuries. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, ruling that the hazard was inherent to a sanitation worker's duties. Wagner appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that a small piece of glass constitutes ordinary garbage, and the associated hazard is inherent to the sanitation worker's job. A dissenting opinion, however, argued that the reasonableness of disposing of such glass and whether the hazard was "ordinary and obvious" should be a question for a jury, thereby raising a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentSanitation Worker InjuryInherent RiskHazardous WasteBroken GlassHomeowner LiabilityAppellate ReviewNegligenceDuty of Care
References
7
Case No. CV-24-2041
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of Wendy Wagner

Wendy Wagner sustained work-related injuries in 1977, eventually classified with a permanent total disability. After denials of medication requests in 2022-2023, she sought a medical exemption from the Medical Treatment Guidelines and Drug Formulary. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied her request, stating a 33-year-old agreement for treatment by a non-coded physician was outside Board jurisdiction. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, finding no authority to compel the carrier to pay for non-coded medical providers and that other issues were not ripe. Wagner's subsequent application for reconsideration and/or full Board review was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of reconsideration, limiting its inquiry to whether the Board's denial was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, finding no such abuse. The court also noted that many issues raised were not properly presented to the Board initially.

Workers' Compensation ClaimPermanent Total DisabilityMedical Treatment Guidelines ExemptionDrug Formulary ApplicationReconsideration DenialFull Board ReviewAppellate DivisionJurisdiction DisputeNon-coded Physician PaymentPrior Agreement Validity
References
14
Case No. CV-24-2041
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2026

Matter of Wagner v. Bobley Publ. Corp.

Claimant Wendy Wagner sustained work-related injuries in 1977, leading to a classification of permanent total disability in 1991. Following denials of her medication requests in 2022-2023, she sought a medical exemption from the Medical Treatment Guidelines and Drug Formulary. A WCLJ and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board denied her requests, asserting lack of authority to compel the carrier to pay for non-coded medical providers. Wagner appealed the Board's denial of her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, limiting its review to whether the denial of reconsideration was arbitrary and capricious, concluding there was no abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation LawMedical Treatment GuidelinesDrug FormularyReconsideration DenialFull Board ReviewAppellate ReviewPermanent Total DisabilityVocational RehabilitationPain ManagementNon-coded Physician
References
14
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06161
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2022

Cotroneo v. Van Wagner Sign Erectors, LLC

Plaintiff Cosmo Cotroneo appealed an order granting defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, determining that the falling gang box lid was a routine workplace risk and not a material requiring hoisting or securing under the statute. However, the court modified the order to grant plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding that missing struts on the gang box constituted a liability as they were safety devices. The defendants' arguments regarding plaintiff's comparative negligence for damaging the struts were found to be speculative. Additionally, the court confirmed that the Van Wagner/Outfront defendants were proper Labor Law defendants, acting as general contractors and agents of the owner.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionGravity-Related RiskGang BoxSafety DevicesComparative NegligenceOwner's AgentGeneral Contractor
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 1978

Tolbert v. Wagner

This case involves an appeal in a negligence action for personal injuries and wrongful death following an automobile accident. The decedent, Eula Tolbert, a passenger, was injured while being driven by a co-employee, Walterine Wagner, in a car owned by Daniel Wagner, returning from an employer-sponsored outing. Both Eula Tolbert and Walterine Wagner received workmen's compensation benefits, leading defendants to successfully move for dismissal of the negligence complaint on the grounds of exclusive remedy. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the dismissal, upholding that the workmen's compensation award constituted a conclusive finding that Tolbert was acting in the course of her employment, thereby barring the negligence action. Furthermore, the court rejected the plaintiffs' argument to permit a derivative action against Daniel Wagner, reaffirming that workmen's compensation provides the full and exclusive remedy.

Negligence actionPersonal injuriesWrongful deathWorkmen's compensationExclusive remedyCo-employeesAutomobile accidentDismissal of complaintAppellate reviewDerivative action
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 1991

Lombardi v. Stout

This case concerns an appeal from an order denying summary judgment on common law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. The plaintiff, an employee of Joseph Facchin, Inc., was injured while cutting a tree limb on a property owned by the Estate of Freda Von Sothen and under contract to James Stout. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, granting summary judgment to defendants James Stout and Joseph Facchin, Inc., for claims based on common law negligence and Labor Law § 200. The court reasoned that the accident stemmed from the subcontractor's methods and tools, not from an inherent property defect or the owner's supervision. A dissenting opinion argued that factual questions remained regarding owner liability under Labor Law §§ 200 and 240, particularly concerning the commercial nature of the work and Stout's alleged awareness and involvement at the job site.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240Common Law NegligenceOwner LiabilityContractor NegligenceSafe Place to WorkLadder AccidentTree RemovalConstruction Site Safety
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 1998

Wagner v. Grinnell Housing Development Fund Corp.

Plaintiff Michael Wagner, an elevator mechanic, was injured while employed by Archer Elevator Company in a building owned by Grinnell. He was pinned between elevator components due to the elevator ascending too far, caused by a too-long cable that violated the New York City Administrative Code. Wagner sued Grinnell for negligence, and Grinnell impleaded Archer. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment motions. On appeal, the order was modified to grant Wagner's cross-motion for summary judgment against Grinnell as to liability, affirming Grinnell's nondelegable duty to maintain the premises.

elevator accidentpremises liabilitynondelegable dutysummary judgmentthird-party claimemployer negligencebuilding owner liabilityadministrative code violationappellate reviewpersonal injury
References
5
Case No. ADJ2801176 (SAL 0099732) ADJ9441191
Regular
Jul 15, 2016

JOSHUA WAGNER (DECEASED) LAURA WAGNER (DEPENDENT) vs. ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS COMPANY; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE, Administered by ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial judge's decision denying a cumulative injury claim for the deceased Joshua Wagner to his neck and mid-back. The Board found that Dr. Lin's medical reports, relied upon by the applicant, were internally inconsistent and not substantial evidence. Furthermore, the Board found no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's decision not to further develop the medical record. The claim for death benefits was denied based on these findings.

Cumulative trauma injuryDeath benefitsMedical reportsSubstantial medical evidenceQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Develop the medical recordFindings and OrdersPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Administrative law judge (WCJ)
References
6
Case No. ADJ1564037 (SFO 0400384)
Regular
Sep 04, 2014

TIMOTHY STOUT vs. SHADOW COVE APARTMENTS, AIG DOMESTIC CLAIMS, INC.

This case concerns Timothy Stout's Petition for Removal, which has been dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The dismissal is based on two primary grounds: the petition was not verified and the issues it raised were already resolved at a prior hearing. Furthermore, the Board found no interlocutory order pending that could cause irreparable harm. Therefore, the Petition for Removal has been formally dismissed.

Petition for RemovalDismissalVerifiedMootInterlocutory OrderIrreparable HarmSignificant PrejudiceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportAugust 6
References
1
Case No. VNO 0434512
Regular
Jun 02, 2008

WENDI WAGNER, WENDI WAGNER BREDDAN vs. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL THOMAS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a previous award, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury causing $69\%$ permanent disability, not $86\%$. This adjustment stemmed from a re-evaluation of the medical expert's opinion regarding work restrictions, particularly concerning environmental factors like light and noise. The Board concluded that the expert's intent was to restrict exposure to excessive bright lights and noise, rather than a completely silent, dark room, which led to the revised rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryAggravation of Chronic Pain SyndromePermanent DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical ExaminerFibromyalgiaWork RestrictionsDisability Evaluation UnitReconsideration
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 24 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