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

Tikhonova v. Ford Motor Co.

Plaintiff Svetlana Tikhonova suffered catastrophic injuries in a car accident involving a vehicle driven by Alexey Konovalov, a Russian diplomat immune from direct suit. Tikhonova subsequently filed a claim against Ford Motor Credit Company, the registered owner, and Ford Motor Company, the long-term lessee of the vehicle, under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (1) for vicarious liability. The defendants argued that the driver's diplomatic immunity should shield them from liability, citing precedents from workers' compensation and volunteer firefighter cases. However, the court rejected this argument, asserting that there is no public policy rationale or statutory scheme that warrants extending diplomatic immunity to unrelated third parties. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's decision, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and reinstated the plaintiff's complaint.

Vicarious LiabilityDiplomatic ImmunityVehicle and Traffic Law § 388Car Owner LiabilityMotor Vehicle AccidentStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPublic PolicyWorkers' Compensation PrecedentFederal Drivers Act
References
17
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05325
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2025

Ramos v. Ford Found.

Plaintiff Miguel Ramos was injured when struck by a falling scaffold component. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment to defendants Ford Foundation and Henegan Construction Co., Inc. on plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) and common-law negligence claims, and on their contractual indemnification claim against Harbour Mechanical Corporation. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed Ford and Henegan's second third-party complaint. The Appellate Division modified this order, vacating the dismissal of the contractual indemnification claim. It further granted Ford and Henegan conditional contractual indemnification from Harbour, while otherwise affirming the Supreme Court's decision, including the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim.

Labor Law § 240(1)Scaffold AccidentFalling ObjectsSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionSubcontractor LiabilityConstruction Site SafetyAppellate ReviewNegligence Claims
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01876 [181 AD3d 1126]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Markey v. Autosaver Ford

Austin Allan Markey, a general manager for Autosaver Ford, was injured in a work-related fall on December 1, 2015. After informing his supervisor on December 15, 2015, that he intended to file a workers' compensation claim due to requiring surgery for a shoulder tear, he was terminated on December 17, 2015. Markey subsequently filed a discrimination claim against Autosaver Ford under Workers' Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found in favor of Markey, concluding that the employer retaliated against him and failed to provide a valid business reason for the discharge. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Markey's employment was terminated in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 120.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimDiscriminationEmployer MisconductSubstantial EvidenceCausal NexusWitness CredibilityAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law Section 120Job Performance
References
5
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02820 [160 AD3d 1001]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2018

Ruiz v. Ford

Plaintiff Alan Ruiz, a Verizon service technician, sustained personal injuries when tires fell from an office shed roof, struck his ladder, and caused him to fall at premises owned by 5102 Foster Avenue Trust. Ruiz commenced an action against Mike Ford and the Trust, alleging common-law negligence, which was later amended to a single cause of action against the Trust for a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted Ruiz's motion for judgment as a matter of law on liability and denied the Trust's cross-motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the applicability of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court determined that the statute was not implicated as the falling tires were not materials being hoisted or secured, nor was it expected that they would require securing for the undertaking. Consequently, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was reversed, the Trust's motion to vacate was granted, the plaintiff's motion was denied, the Trust's cross-motion was granted, and the amended complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryFalling ObjectLadder AccidentPremises LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewCPLR 4401Judgment as a Matter of LawConstruction SafetyLabor Law Compliance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 1997

McIntyre v. Manhattan Ford, Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.

Plaintiff Maureen McIntyre sued defendant Manhattan Ford, Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. for sexual harassment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, securing a jury verdict of $6.6 million. The defendant subsequently moved to set aside the verdicts or for a new trial, citing CPLR 4404 (a). The court denied the motion regarding liability, finding sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment created by management and the employer's failure to act. However, the court conditionally granted a new trial on damages unless the plaintiff accepts a reduced total award of $3,703,000 for emotional pain and suffering, lost wages, and punitive damages.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesPost-Trial MotionJury VerdictEmployee DiscriminationEmployer Liability
References
32
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06470 [188 AD3d 506]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Singh v. Manhattan Ford Lincoln, Inc.

Plaintiff Balwinder Singh appealed an order denying his motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 241 (6) claims and granting defendants' motions to dismiss various claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The court reinstated Singh's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(2)) and his common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Manhattan Ford Lincoln, Inc. However, it dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(1)) against Benny & Son Construction Corp. The decision noted triable issues of fact regarding whether the debris causing the slip was integral to Singh's work and MFL's constructive notice of the debris. Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(1) was found inapplicable due to the accident's location in an open area, not a passageway.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeWorkplace SafetyConstruction AccidentSlip and FallDebris AccumulationConstructive NoticeAppellate DivisionLiability
References
6
Case No. 18-343/344
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2018

Sunrise Acupuncture PC v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y.

The Appellate Term, First Department, affirmed the judgments of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County. The defendant-insurer, Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York, had appealed two judgments rendered after a consolidated nonjury trial, which were in favor of the plaintiff, Sunrise Acupuncture PC a/a/o Luis Suero. The appellate court concluded that the trial court appropriately denied the defendant's belated attempt to invoke the primary jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Board. Despite raising the workers' compensation statute as an affirmative defense nearly seven years prior, the defendant only actively pursued this issue at trial, which was deemed an untimely maneuver. The court held that the defendant could not, at such a late stage, use the primary jurisdiction argument to further delay the ongoing litigation.

No-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BoardPrimary Jurisdiction DoctrineAppellate ReviewTimeliness of DefenseAffirmative DefensesProcedural LawInsurance LitigationPanel DecisionMedical Claims
References
3
Case No. ADJ2667325 (LAO 0789144)
Regular
Jul 08, 2014

Brenda Millender vs. Ford Motor Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding Brenda Millender sustained a psychiatric injury due to her employment at Ford Motor Company. Ford argued the WCJ erred in finding actual employment events caused the injury, that medical evidence was insufficient, and that the injury stemmed from lawful personnel actions. The WCAB rescinded the award and returned the case to the trial level. This is because the WCJ did not properly analyze Ford's affirmative defense that the injury was substantially caused by good faith personnel actions, as required by Labor Code section 3208.3(h). The WCJ also failed to consider Ford's documentary evidence supporting its defense and misapplied the causation standard for good faith personnel actions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBrenda MillenderFord Motor CompanyOpinion and Decision After Reconsiderationindustrial cumulative traumapsyche injurypredominant causeLabor Code section 3208.3good faith personnel actionssubstantial medical evidence
References
1
Case No. 2018 NYSlipOp 08059
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2018

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v. A.O Smith Water Prods. Co.

This case involves an appeal in the New York City Asbestos Litigation where Mary Juni, as administratrix of Arthur H. Juni, Jr.'s estate, sued Ford Motor Company. Mr. Juni, who died of mesothelioma, was an auto mechanic exposed to asbestos from Ford vehicles. The core issue was whether the evidence sufficiently established that Ford's conduct was a proximate cause of Mr. Juni's injuries, particularly concerning the toxicity of asbestos in friction products after being subjected to high temperatures during manufacturing and use. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, finding the evidence insufficient to establish proximate causation under existing legal standards, specifically a missing link in the proof regarding the toxicity of the altered asbestos. Concurring opinions further elaborated on the failure to establish a connection between Ford's products and the decedent's exposure or the general causation related to altered chrysotile asbestos. A dissenting opinion argued that the jury's verdict, finding Ford 49% liable, was supported by sufficient evidence and not 'utterly irrational,' highlighting the evidence of Mr. Juni's exposure to asbestos-laden dust from Ford vehicle parts and Ford's internal recognition of asbestos dangers.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaProximate CauseProduct LiabilityToxicologyFriction ProductsChrysotile AsbestosExpert TestimonyJury VerdictAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Brogan v. Ford Motor Co.

In this case, a claimant, an employee of Ford Motor Company, sought benefits for occupational hearing loss, which the Workers' Compensation Board awarded based on newly adopted regulations (12 NYCRR part 351) effective October 1, 1980. Ford Motor Company appealed the board's decision, challenging the validity of these regulations and the procedures followed for their adoption. Ford contended that a public hearing was required under Labor Law § 29, that the regulations failed to account for presbycusis (age-related hearing loss), that the special committee exceeded its statutory membership limit, and that the adoption process was unconstitutional. The court rejected all of Ford's arguments, ruling that Workers' Compensation Law § 49-gg superseded the Labor Law's hearing requirement, upholding the board's discretion regarding presbycusis, confirming the committee's adherence to statutory limits, and finding that the board acted within its delegated constitutional authority. Consequently, the court affirmed the board's decisions.

Occupational Hearing LossWorkers' CompensationRegulatory ChallengePresbycusisLabor LawWorkers' Compensation LawAdministrative ProcedureStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawDelegation of Authority
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 119 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