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. ADJ12394877
Regular
Dec 14, 2020

SABINA RAMOS vs. GLOBAL FOOD SERVICES, FEDERAL INSURANCE

The applicant was injured and subsequently offered modified work within her restrictions, which she initially performed. However, the applicant then abandoned her employment after suitable modified work was provided by the employer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that she was not entitled to temporary disability indemnity due to job abandonment. This denial is based on legal precedent that an employee may be estopped from claiming temporary disability for periods where they refuse or abandon suitable modified work without good cause.

Modified workAbandonment of workTemporary disability indemnityPetition for reconsiderationCredibility determinationsPrimary treating physicianWork restrictionsLabor Code section 4062EstoppelOdd lot doctrine
References
0
Case No. ADJ8270156
Regular
Oct 10, 2014

JORGE PRECIADO vs. ALAMILLO REBAR, INC.; OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE

This case involves an employer seeking reconsideration of an award of temporary disability indemnity to the applicant for an industrial injury. The employer argued that the medical evidence was insufficient and that the applicant was estopped from claiming benefits due to refusing modified work. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's report which credited the applicant's testimony that he was not offered suitable modified work. The Board emphasized that an applicant may be estopped from receiving benefits only if they refuse suitable modified work without good cause, and the judge's credibility determination was given great weight.

Temporary disability indemnityQualified medical evaluatorSubstantial medical evidenceEstoppelModified workOdd lot doctrineHealing periodCredibility determinationsPetition for reconsiderationFindings of Fact
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parrales v. Wonder Works Construction Corp.

The plaintiff, who sustained personal injuries while working in an elevator shaft used for demolition debris disposal, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The initial order granted the defendants' motion for reargument and, upon reargument, vacated a prior order that had granted the plaintiff summary judgment on certain Labor Law § 241 (6) claims. The appellate court modified the order, reinstating summary judgment for the plaintiff on claims predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a)(1), 23-1.20, and 23-2.5 (a), finding the plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of entitlement. However, the court also awarded summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (b), concluding that this provision lacked the specificity required for such a cause of action.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentDemolition WorkConstruction AccidentFalling DebrisIndustrial CodeComparative NegligenceAppellate ReviewKings County
References
11
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04773 [129 AD3d 471]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2015

Serowik v. Leardon Boiler Works Inc.

Jozef Serowik, an employee of GDT, sustained severe hand injuries while lowering a heavy tank, which was part of a boiler installation. The incident led to claims under Labor Law sections. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Serowik partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants appealed, and the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court dismissed Serowik's common law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and granted conditional summary judgment on common law indemnification to the defendants. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the finding of liability against defendants under Labor Law § 240 (1), determining that Leardon Boiler Works Inc. could be held liable as an agent of the owner.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentIndemnificationAppellate ReviewGravity AccidentScaffolding LawOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityProximate Cause
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02301 [182 AD3d 821]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2020

Matter of Community, Work, & Independence, Inc. v. New York State Off. for People with Dev. Disabilities

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by Community, Work, and Independence, Inc. (petitioner) to challenge a determination affirming the objection to its proposed discharge of M.D., an individual with developmental disabilities, from day habilitation services. M.D.'s parents objected to the discharge, and an administrative hearing sustained their objection, a decision later affirmed by the Commissioner of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding that the burden of proof was appropriately placed on the service provider. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that discharging M.D. was not reasonable, considering his needs, the lack of suitable alternative programs, and despite the petitioner's financial concerns. The court suggested that financial issues for service providers should be addressed by seeking increased funding rather than by discharging individuals.

Developmental DisabilityHCBS WaiverDischarge ServicesAdministrative HearingBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceFinancial ConcernsService ProviderMedicaid FundingAutism Spectrum
References
7
Case No. ADJ3133929 (OAK 0314655) ADJ1728489 (OAK 0314656)
Regular
Feb 02, 2009

PAUL CRUM vs. CITY OF OAKLAND, Permissibly Self-Insured, JT2 INTEGRATED SERVICES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case concerns an applicant's entitlement to a modified work arrangement due to an industrial injury. The applicant was awarded accommodation with a city vehicle that doesn't exacerbate his symptoms or, alternatively, a suitable work assignment. The defendant appealed, arguing this award exceeded the judge's authority by specifying a particular vehicle or assignment instead of medical treatment. The Board granted reconsideration and amended the award, affirming the applicant's right to either the modified vehicle or an attempted reassignment within his restrictions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardFuture Medical TreatmentAccommodationIndustrial InjuryWork AssignmentMedical TreatmentWCJReport and Recommendation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2014

In Re the Arbitration Between Delaney Group, Inc. & Holmgren Enterprises, Inc.

This case involves cross-appeals from a Supreme Court order concerning an arbitration dispute between a prime contractor (Petitioner) and a subcontractor (Respondent) on a public work project. Respondent initially sought additional payment via arbitration, leading to an award that included credits for Petitioner. After a request for clarification, the arbitrator issued a modified award removing these credits. Petitioner then sought to vacate both the original and modified awards, while Respondent sought to confirm the modified award. The Supreme Court vacated both arbitration awards and remanded the case for a rehearing, finding that the arbitrator exceeded authority in modifying the award and imperfectly executed powers in the original award by failing to address a key stipulation. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, upholding the vacatur and remand of both arbitration awards.

ArbitrationContract DisputePublic Work ProjectSubcontractorPrime ContractorCross AppealsVacatur of AwardRemandArbitrator AuthorityCPLR 7511
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06537 [165 AD3d 667]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Matter of Heritage Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

This case involves an appeal by Heritage Mechanical Services, Inc. (petitioner) from a judgment denying its petition to annul a determination by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (DPW). The dispute stemmed from a general construction contract awarded to Posillico/Skanska, JV for a waste water treatment plant upgrade. Heritage was listed as a subcontractor for HVAC work, but a disagreement arose over the agreed-upon amount, with Heritage claiming a higher price for alternates not included in the initial bid figure. DPW approved Posillico's request to perform the HVAC work itself, citing Heritage's refusal as a 'legitimate construction need' under General Municipal Law § 101 (5). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding DPW's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or an abuse of discretion, and thus dismissed the proceeding.

Public Works ContractSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Municipal LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProject Labor AgreementHVAC SubcontractBid DisputeContractual Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2010

Coaxum v. Metcon Construction, Inc.

Plaintiff was injured after being pushed by a coworker and falling into an open hole while working on premises owned by defendant 200 West 26, LLC and leased by defendant Buy Buy Baby, Inc. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which was denied by the Supreme Court, Bronx County. On appeal, the order was modified to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims because defendants did not supervise plaintiff's work. Additionally, the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was dismissed to the extent it relied on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1), as the accident area was a work area, not a passageway. However, questions of fact remain regarding the existence, size, and depth of the hole for Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1).

Summary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial CodeFalling HazardWork AreaPassagewayIntervening ActSuperseding Cause
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 1992

Carr v. Jacob Perl Associates

The plaintiff, an elevator maintenance mechanic, was injured after falling into an open elevator shaft while attempting to climb into a stuck elevator without proper equipment. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied defendant-appellant Jacob Perl Associates' motion for summary judgment, granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on liability against Perl, and denied third-party defendant-respondent Otis Elevator Company's cross-motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was modified to grant Jacob Perl Associates summary judgment on its third-party complaint seeking indemnity from Otis Elevator Company. The appellate court affirmed Perl's absolute liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) as the building owner for failing to provide safety devices, finding the plaintiff was engaged in 'repair' work. However, Perl was found entitled to indemnity from Otis, the plaintiff's employer, as Perl did not supervise or control the work, and the elevator maintenance contract was solely between the lessee and Otis, making Otis responsible for the work.

Summary JudgmentIndemnityLabor LawElevator AccidentWorker InjuryBuilding Owner LiabilityThird-Party ComplaintAppellate ReviewConstruction LawSafety Devices
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 8,411 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