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?

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The plaintiff, a self-employed painter, suffered personal injuries after falling from a ladder while performing exterior painting for the defendants at their home. He filed an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants did not exercise supervisory control over the plaintiff's work, which is a prerequisite for liability under these specific statutes and common-law negligence when the injury stems from the work method rather than a dangerous premises condition.

Personal InjuryLadder FallLabor Law 200Common Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionHomeowner LiabilityIndependent ContractorSupervisory AuthoritySafe Place to Work
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Samuel Kendle, an employee of subcontractor Clifford Quay & Sons, Inc., was injured while operating a motorized wheelbarrow at a construction site in Saratoga County. He fell when plywood covering a trench, allegedly dug by defendant August Bohl Contracting Company, Inc. (Bohl), buckled. Kendle and his wife sued the property owners, construction manager, and Bohl, alleging violations of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court dismissed Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 claims but denied Bohl's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and negligence causes of action. On appeal, the court reversed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that Bohl did not exercise supervisory control over Kendle's work, a necessary element for Labor Law § 200 liability. The court also dismissed the negligence claim, noting that the trench was readily observable to the experienced plaintiff.

Construction AccidentMotorized Wheelbarrow InjuryWorksite HazardSubcontractor NegligenceLabor Law LiabilityLack of Supervisory ControlCommon-Law NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealAppellate ReversalPlywood Failure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The plaintiffs, home health care companies (Health Acquisition Corp., Bestcare, Inc., and Aides at Home, Inc.), sued various defendants, including accounting firm DeChants, Fuglein & Johnson, LLP (DFJ) and actuarial firm SGRisk, LLC, for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The suit arose after the self-insurance trust they were members of became insolvent, leading to significant assessments from the Workers' Compensation Board. Plaintiffs alleged defendants concealed the trust's true financial state and their liability risks. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against DFJ and SGRisk. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the complaint adequately alleged "near-privity" and negligence against both firms, even clarifying that actuaries could be held liable for common-law negligence despite not being licensed professionals for malpractice claims. A partial appeal concerning leave to amend the complaint was dismissed.

professional negligencenegligent misrepresentationCPLR 3211 (a)motion to dismissgroup self-insurance trustWorkers' Compensation Law § 50joint and several liabilityactuariesaccountantsnear-privity
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, concerning personal injuries sustained while working as a surveyor. The original order granted summary judgment to defendants on common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) claims, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend his bill of particulars to include a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.23. The appellate court modified the order, granting the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend his bill of particulars and denying summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, finding defendants lacked supervisory authority over the plaintiff's work. The case involved an alleged fall on a steeply inclined slope made of loosely compacted dirt and rocks at a construction site.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentBill of Particulars AmendmentConstruction Site AccidentWorkplace SafetyIndustrial Code ViolationNegligenceAppellate ReviewEarthen Slope Fall
References
13
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04616
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2023

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

William Wilson, a worker injured on a scaffold, sued Bergon Construction Corp. and other entities for personal injuries, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied Wilson's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) but granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, granting Wilson's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1), finding that the scaffold failed to provide adequate protection, which was a proximate cause of his injuries. The court affirmed the dismissal of the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, concluding that the defendants lacked supervisory control over the work methods and that general supervisory authority is insufficient for liability.

Labor Law 240(1)Labor Law 200Scaffold AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityWorker SafetyProximate CauseNondelegable DutyElevated Work Site
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 1998

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

Plaintiff, a laborer, sustained a back injury while manually transporting a heavy ductlift up a stairway with a co-worker, alleging the co-worker crouched and shifted the full weight onto him. The initial order granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims. The appellate court modified this, dismissing the complaint in its entirety, including all cross claims and third-party actions. The Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was dismissed as the lifting activity was not a 'special hazard'. The Labor Law § 241 (6) claim lacked evidence of lighting violations or causation by debris. The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims were dismissed due to the absence of supervisory control by the owner or general contractor over the work.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentThird-Party ClaimsCommon Law NegligenceSupervisory ControlAppellate DecisionPremises LiabilityWorker Safety
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2009

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

Plaintiff, an ironworker, sustained injuries while working on a bridge owned by defendant City when he was struck by an employer-operated pickup truck. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) and for common-law negligence. This decision was unanimously affirmed, finding that the owner could not be held liable as the injuries resulted from the contractor's methods, and the owner lacked supervisory control. The court also deemed the cited Industrial Code provisions inapplicable and rejected arguments based on inherently dangerous conditions or OSH Act violations.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Common-Law NegligenceSupervisory ControlContractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityIndustrial CodeWorkplace SafetyBridge Construction
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Cresencio Bastida appealed a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Richard Aznaran on claims of negligence, gross negligence, and malice. Bastida was electrocuted while working to install a mobile home on Aznaran's ranch. The appellate court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding Aznaran's supervisory control over Bastida's work, which could establish a duty of care for both negligent activity and premises defect claims. Consequently, the summary judgment on the negligence, gross negligence, and malice claims was reversed, and those claims were remanded for further proceedings, while the summary judgment on other related claims was affirmed.

NegligenceGross NegligenceMaliceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorDuty of CareSupervisory ControlFact IssueAppellate Review
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The dissenting opinion argues that the majority erred in dismissing a contractor's negligence claim against a town. The dissent contends the town violated Labor Law § 220 (3-a) (a) by failing to determine worker classifications, which resulted in the contractor incurring damages for underpayment of prevailing wages. It asserts that the statute's legislative intent includes protection for contractors and that denying a negligence cause of action leaves the contractor without an effective remedy for reimbursement. Additionally, the dissent argues against dismissing the unjust enrichment claim. It advocates for the order to be modified, denying the defendant's summary judgment motion and granting, in part, the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability in negligence, remitting the matter for further proceedings on damages and contributory negligence.

NegligenceStatutory DutyLabor LawPrevailing WagePublic WorksUnjust EnrichmentSummary JudgmentContributory NegligenceReimbursementLegislative Intent
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 4,862 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