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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Oscar, an employee of Pat Crow Forgings, was offered a supervisory role. He was hesitant to leave his union protection, so he negotiated an agreement allowing him to revert to a hammer operator if the supervisory role was unsuitable or his performance substandard. After being discharged from the supervisory position for unauthorized changes in forging methods, he requested reinstatement as a hammer operator, which was denied by the new president, Les Cathey. Oscar sued Pat Crow Forgings and Les Cathey for breach of employment contract. The trial court found in favor of Oscar, awarding him past wages and attorney's fees. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, as the appellate court found the August 14, 1981 letter constituted a specific contract term limiting the employer's right to terminate Oscar at will, instead allowing only demotion to hammer operator. The appellate court also overruled Oscar's cross-point regarding future lost wages, finding he waived the error by not preserving the complaint at the trial level.

employment contractwrongful dischargeat-will employmentcollective bargaining agreementbreach of contractappealdemotionreinstatementlost wageswaiver of error
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case addresses whether the New York State Commissioner of Labor can mandate a public works contractor to pay prevailing wages to an employee who performs both supervisory and nonsupervisory tasks under Labor Law § 220. Petitioner Tenalp Construction Corp. challenged a prior determination by the Commissioner that it had willfully underpaid Steven Sauter, a superintendent/carpenter, for his carpentry duties on a public school construction project. The court affirmed the Commissioner's finding, emphasizing that an employee's job title does not override the nature of the work performed. It held that if the work is predominantly physical and falls under the statute's protection, the prevailing wage applies, regardless of additional supervisory roles. The court underscored the necessity for a liberal interpretation of Labor Law § 220 to fulfill its protective intent for workers.

prevailing wageLabor Lawpublic workssupervisory dutiesnonsupervisory dutiescarpenterwillfulnessstatutory interpretationNew York State Department of Laboremployee classification
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2006

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case concerns an appeal from an order denying motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs Agim and Lush Preldakaj, shareholders and officers of Alps Realty of NY Corp., were injured by an explosion of refinishing chemicals in a building owned by Alps. They sued Alps for negligence and negligent hiring of the independent contractor, Gjelosh Preldakaj. Alps moved for summary judgment arguing independent contractor liability and that principals cannot sue their own corporation. Plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment on liability, citing Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 (1). The motion court denied both motions, finding questions of fact regarding Alps' negligence and the plaintiffs' roles. The appellate court affirmed the denial, concluding that factual issues remain regarding the extent of the plaintiffs' involvement in the building's maintenance, the independent contractor exception to liability, and the applicability of the Multiple Dwelling Law given the plaintiffs' potential supervisory role.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentCorporate LiabilityIndependent ContractorMultiple Dwelling LawPremises LiabilityShareholder LitigationWorker InjuryAffirmationAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. 77-CV-127, 77-CV-191
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Plaintiff Boaz Avitzur brought an action alleging defendants, various supervisory personnel at the Department of the Army, violated his First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights by conspiring to terminate his civilian employment. Avitzur claimed he was forced to take a psychiatric exam, subjected to surveillance, suspended, and terminated, allegedly in retaliation for whistleblowing and asserting employment rights. While Avitzur was reinstated with back pay through administrative remedies, he sought damages. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that claims arising from the employer-employee relationship were adequately addressed by the comprehensive administrative scheme, thus precluding a Bivens-type action for damages. Furthermore, the court determined that the alleged "unconstitutional surveillance" did not constitute a deprivation of constitutional rights.

Federal EmploymentConstitutional RightsBivens ActionQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentAdministrative RemediesFirst AmendmentFourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentSixth Amendment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2005

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied their motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case. The appellate court reversed the order, granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The case centered on the homeowner's exemption from liability under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241, which applies unless the owner directed or controlled the work. The defendants established they were entitled to this exemption due to their limited supervisory role. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants' involvement extended beyond incidental interactions, thus the defendants' motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentHomeowner's ExemptionLabor Law LiabilityDirection and ControlAppellate DivisionProperty Owner ResponsibilityContractor WorkStatutory InterpretationMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Claimant, employed in a supervisory role at a nursing home, was terminated following an incident where she allegedly failed to assess an elderly resident's pain, told co-workers not to administer medication or call a doctor, and believed the resident was faking pain, shortly before the resident's death from acute heart failure. She was initially granted unemployment insurance benefits, but the employer objected. An Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board concluded that her actions constituted disqualifying misconduct, being detrimental to the employer's interest. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that claimant's conduct went beyond mere negligence.

unemployment insurancemisconductnursing homesupervisory positionterminationemployee conductemployer interestadministrative lawappealcredibility
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Defendant Turner Construction Company, Inc. moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint from Central Synagogue Sanctuary, contractual indemnity from Central Synagogue, and insurance coverage. The dispute arises from a construction management agreement for renovations at Central Synagogue, which was destroyed by a fire allegedly due to subcontractor negligence. Central Synagogue claims Turner failed in its supervisory role regarding safety. The court denied Turner's motion, ruling that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding Turner's negligence in overseeing subcontractors and its responsibility for safety protocols. The decision further clarified that Turner was not exempt from joint and several liability and was not contractually entitled to insurance coverage directly from Central Synagogue.

Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnityConstruction ManagementNegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityInsurance Coverage DisputeJoint and Several LiabilityFire DamageNew York LawGeneral Obligations Law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Evelyn A. Mundo, a former employee of Sanus Health Plan, was discharged in 1993 and alleged her termination violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because Sanus perceived her inability to tolerate stress as an impairment that substantially limited her ability to work. Sanus moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that job-related stress is not a disability under the ADA. The court granted Sanus' motion, ruling that an inability to tolerate stressful situations is not an impairment for ADA purposes. Furthermore, Mundo failed to demonstrate that her employer considered her generally unable to work in a broad range of positions, rather than just a specific supervisory role. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed in its entirety, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

ADADisability DiscriminationPerceived DisabilityJob-Related StressMotion to DismissFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Major Life ActivityWorkingAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Decedent, who held a paid position as an assistant fire chief and was also a volunteer firefighter, died from a ruptured cerebral aneurysm while at a fire. His surviving spouse filed claims under both the Workers’ Compensation Law and the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law. Initially, a workers' compensation law judge found the death causally related to volunteer duties, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, determining that the decedent was acting in his paid capacity as an assistant fire chief, thus falling under the Workers’ Compensation Law. The claimant appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, citing substantial evidence that at the time of death, the decedent was engaged as a paid employee due to his duties, pay, and supervisory role, which were beyond those of a volunteer firefighter.

Volunteer Firefighters' Benefit LawWorkers' Compensation LawDeath benefitsCerebral aneurysmAssistant fire chiefEmployee vs. Volunteer statusSubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewSupervisory roleCausal relationship
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

In this case, the defendants, Skanska USA Building, Inc., Barney Skanska, Inc., and Barney Skanska Construction Company, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Skanska argued they were not liable as a separate prime contractor without privity to the plaintiff's employer and that their role as a 'construction manager' exempted them. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding that Skanska was a statutory agent of the owner due to delegated authority over on-site safety matters, making them liable despite lack of direct contractual privity. The court also held that their designation as a construction manager did not relieve them of duties under Labor Law § 240 (1) given their supervisory control.

Summary JudgmentLiabilityLabor Law § 240(1)Statutory AgentConstruction ManagerGeneral ContractorContractual PrivitySupervisory ControlOn-site SafetyPersonal Injury
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 810 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