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

Zito v. Occidental Chemical Corp.

Plaintiff, a laborer employed by International Technology Corporation (ITC), suffered injuries after slipping on grease at a landfill owned by Occidental Chemical Corporation (Occidental) while reporting for work. The plaintiff initiated an action against Occidental, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). Occidental, in turn, filed a third-party action against ITC for contractual indemnification and insurance. The Supreme Court denied ITC's motion for summary judgment and granted Occidental's cross-motion, a decision that was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The appellate court clarified that the accident site constituted a 'worksite' under the Labor Law and that the agreement obligating ITC to procure insurance for Occidental was enforceable despite General Obligations Law § 5-322.1.

Labor Law ViolationWorksite DefinitionSlip and Fall InjuryContractual IndemnificationThird-Party LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionGeneral Obligations LawInsurance Coverage DisputeAppellate AffirmationConstruction Site Accident
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Short v. Durez Division-Hooker Chemicals & Plastic Corp.

Terry Short, an employee of Davis Refrigeration Company, sustained injuries while climbing a ladder at a plant owned by Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC). He and his wife initiated an action against OCC, asserting a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the claim was precluded by Workers’ Compensation Law and that Short was engaged in routine maintenance. Plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss based on Workers’ Compensation Law, citing factual disputes regarding special employment status. However, the court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, as there was an issue of fact concerning whether Short's activity constituted routine maintenance or protected repair work. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order, denying defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and reinstating it, while also denying the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment.

Labor Law 240(1)Workers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment MotionSpecial Employment DoctrineRoutine Maintenance ExceptionConstruction WorkLadder AccidentFactual DisputeAppellate ReviewOrder Modification
References
9
Case No. Civ. 79-714
Regular Panel Decision

Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. v. Diamond Shamrock Corp.

This case involves several pending motions before Chief Judge Curtin concerning patent infringement disputes between E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company and Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corporation (plaintiffs) against Diamond Shamrock Corporation (defendant). The court addressed Du Pont's motion to vacate a prior order joining it as an involuntary plaintiff, which was denied. Diamond's motion to consolidate two related cases, Civ. 79-714 and Civ. 79-794, was granted in the interest of judicial economy. Additionally, Diamond's motion to file an amended counterclaim was partially granted, allowing the assertion of new claims for infringement of the Dotson '194 patent and unfair competition, including a new jury trial right for these specific issues. The court clarified that the jury trial right for previously asserted claims was waived.

Patent InfringementMotion PracticeCase ConsolidationAmended CounterclaimJury Trial WaiverPendent JurisdictionRule 19(a) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 42 Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 13 Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 38(b) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
18
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01829 [159 AD3d 1457]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2018

Rickicki v. Borden Chem.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, heard an appeal concerning two actions, Rickicki v Borden Chemical and Crowley v C-E Minerals, Inc., both involving claims for damages due to silicosis from silica dust exposure at Dexter Corporation. The core legal dispute centered on the applicability of the 'sophisticated intermediary doctrine,' which asserts that product manufacturers have no duty to warn ultimate users if an informed intermediary, like an employer, is aware of the product's dangers. Reversing the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, the Appellate Division declined to recognize this doctrine under the specific facts of this case. Consequently, the court reinstated negligence and products liability causes of action based on failure to warn, along with loss of consortium claims, against the defendant silica manufacturers. The decision emphasized that whether adequate warnings were provided to the injured workers and if failure to warn was a proximate cause remained triable issues of fact.

Sophisticated Intermediary DoctrineFailure to WarnProducts LiabilityNegligenceSilica Dust ExposureSilicosisProximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Local 227, International Chemical Workers Union

BASF Wyandotte Corporation sought a declaration that its payments to union officials, including Local 227 and its officers LaMountain and Scales, under a "no-docking" provision violated Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The provision allowed union officials paid time off for union business. Following BASF's cessation of these payments, an ALJ found the repudiation an unfair labor practice. The court, referencing similar cases, determined that these payments constituted a legitimate cooperative effort and fell within the exception outlined in § 302(c)(1) of the Act. Consequently, the court found the payments lawful and denied BASF's motion for summary judgment.

Labour LawLMRA Section 302No-docking ProvisionEmployer Payments to UnionSummary JudgmentUnion OfficialsCollective Bargaining AgreementUnfair Labor PracticeStatutory InterpretationLabor Management Relations
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Whitney v. Quaker Chemical Corp.

The Supreme Court erred by not granting Quaker Chemical Corporation's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. Plaintiff Gaylord Whitney sought damages for personal injuries due to toxic substance exposure from the defendant's products. The plaintiff experienced difficulty breathing and was diagnosed with bronchitis and chemical exposure between August and November 1989, directly linked to workplace fumes. An emergency room doctor confirmed the chemical exposure, leading Whitney to file an Occupational Injury and Illness Report and a workers’ compensation claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board later determined that an injury occurred on August 17, 1989, due to workplace exposure. According to CPLR 214-c (2), a three-year statute of limitations applies from the date of injury discovery. Since Whitney was aware of his injury by late 1989, and the action was not commenced until October 29, 1993, the court found the action to be untimely. Justices Fallon and Callahan dissented from the majority decision.

Time-barredStatute of LimitationsToxic ExposurePersonal InjuryWorkers' CompensationDiscovery RuleOccupational InjuryChemical ExposureBronchitisSummary Judgment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Glod v. Ashland Chemical Co.

James Glod, and derivatively Lisa Glod, sued Eastman Chemical Products, Inc. and other defendants for injuries, specifically asthma, allegedly caused by exposure to toxic chemicals at Glod's workplace between 1982 and 1985. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on failure to state a cause of action and Statute of Limitations. The court granted dismissal of the seventh cause of action (unspecified statutory violations) and the first and second causes of action (strict liability and negligence) under CPLR 214-c, finding them time-barred. All other causes of action survived dismissal, and the plaintiffs' cross-motions to amend the complaint and declare CPLR 214-c unconstitutional were denied.

Toxic tortStatute of limitationsCPLR 214-cChemical exposureAsthmaPersonal injuryStrict liabilityNegligenceBreach of contractBreach of warranty
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Clumber Transportation Corp.

Clumber Transportation Corporation and Poppy Cab Corporation appealed decisions from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board found both corporations to be employers, subject to workers’ compensation insurance requirements, because they leased taxicab medallions and, in Clumber's case, had more than one corporate officer prior to January 1, 1987. The corporations challenged the statutory employment relationship and the Board Chairman's authority to delegate penalty imposition. The court affirmed the Board’s interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 2, finding that medallion leases created a statutory employment relationship. It also upheld the Board's finding regarding Clumber's multiple officers and the Chairman's delegation authority. However, the court modified the penalty against Poppy Cab Corporation, reducing it from $7,200 to $6,000, while affirming the decision against Clumber.

Workers Compensation LawTaxicab MedallionEmployer-Employee RelationshipStatutory EmploymentCorporate OfficersInsurance RequirementDelegation of AuthorityAdministrative PenaltiesAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. 531567
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Yi Sun

Claimant Yi Sun appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from August 14, 2020, which denied her request to reopen two workers' compensation claims and seek an increase in benefits. Sun, a former jeweler technician and hotel housekeeper, had established claims in 2002 and 2008 for occupational bronchitis and work-related injuries, respectively, both resulting in permanent partial disabilities. She sought reclassification and emergency assistance due to worsened conditions and exhaustion of indemnity benefits. The Board denied her request, finding insufficient evidence of a material change in condition and untimely filing for an extreme hardship redetermination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion given the lack of medical documentation to support a change in her condition and her failure to meet the requirements for an extreme hardship redetermination under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3).

Reopening claimsPermanent partial disabilityWage-earning capacityIndemnity benefitsExtreme hardshipReclassificationWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate reviewMedical evidenceChange in condition
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,766 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