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

Allen v. Telergy Network Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Luc D. Allen, an employee of Marais Trenching, Inc., was seriously injured while repairing a trenching machine on a fiber optic cable project. He and his wife filed an action against Telergy Network Services, Inc. (owner) and Mastec North America, Inc. d/b/a Wilde Construction (general contractor), alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), as well as a contractual third-party beneficiary claim. The defendants and third-party defendant Marais Trenching, Inc. moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the Supreme Court, dismissing all claims. On appeal, the plaintiffs’ claims under Labor Law § 200, § 241 (6), and the third-party beneficiary claim were reviewed. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding no control by Telergy or Wilde over the repair work, no violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.5 (f), and that the plaintiff was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the highway work permit or the contract between Telergy and Wilde.

Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentTrenching AccidentConstruction Site SafetyThird-Party Beneficiary ClaimAppellate AffirmationEmployer ResponsibilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityUnsafe Work Condition
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Formica

The case involves defendant Kenneth Formica, a partner in Formica Construction Corporation, facing a seven-count indictment including manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. The charges stem from a trench collapse on December 15, 2003, in Richmond County, which resulted in the death of Lorenzo Pavia and injury to John Paci. The defendant, despite his experience and awareness of safety regulations requiring shoring or sloping for trenches over five feet deep, directed workers into an unsafe, unshored trench. The court denied Formica's motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient to establish foreseeability of the trench collapse and support the charges, distinguishing the case from prior precedents.

Trench CollapseConstruction AccidentManslaughterCriminally Negligent HomicideReckless EndangermentAssaultSafety RegulationsForeseeabilityGrand JuryIndictment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salazar v. Novalex Contracting Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of T-Construction Co., Inc., was injured on a construction site, falling into a four-foot-deep trench while spreading concrete. The defendants, Novalex Contracting Corp., 96 Rockaway, LLC, and T-Construction Co., Inc., had their motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims initially granted by the motion court. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, reinstating both claims, asserting that the trench constituted an elevation-related hazard under Labor Law § 240 (1) and a hazardous opening under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1) (i). The court rejected the argument that covering the trench was impractical for the work, noting defendants failed to prove this burden. A dissenting opinion argued that the fall did not involve an elevation-related risk contemplated by § 240 (1) and that § 241 (6) was inapplicable as the trench was being actively filled.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Hazardous openingElevation-related riskSummary judgmentConstruction site injuryTrench fallConcrete spreadingIndustrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b)(1)Appellate Division
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reavely v. Yonkers Raceway Programs, Inc.

The dissenting opinion concerns plaintiff Walter Reavely, a construction worker injured while cutting plywood on a concrete slab. He slipped on unhardened hot tar, causing a circular saw to cut his right thumb and index finger as he tried to prevent falling into a nearby trench. The dissent argues that the injury was not the result of a gravity-related hazard covered by Labor Law § 240 (1), but rather from a loss of balance on a slippery, level surface. It contends that the proximity of the trench or the absence of safety devices for it were not the proximate cause of the injury, as the plaintiff did not actually fall into the trench. The dissent concludes that the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims should be dismissed, and the order reversed.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Construction AccidentSlippery SurfaceProximate CauseGravity-Related RiskSafety DevicesDissenting OpinionWorker InjuryCircular Saw Injury
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weiss v. American Jewish Committee

Plaintiffs Rabbi Avi Weiss and Rosa Sacharin, descendants of Holocaust victims, sued The American Jewish Committee (AJC) to halt the construction of a memorial trench at the Belzec death camp in Poland, funded by defendant AJC. Plaintiffs argued the trench violated Jewish law (Halacha) and international law, specifically the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) for Sacharin, and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress for Rabbi Weiss. The Court, citing Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, determined that the international conventions referenced by Sacharin (Protocol I and ICCPR) did not establish sufficiently definite or universally accepted legal obligations to prohibit the trench construction. Consequently, Sacharin's ATCA claim was dismissed, and Rabbi Weiss's state law claims were remanded to New York State Supreme Court due to the dismissal of the federal cause of action.

Holocaust MemorialBelzecAlien Tort Claims ActInternational Humanitarian LawJewish Religious LawHalacha ViolationDesecration of GravesEmotional DistressSubject Matter JurisdictionJudicial Discretion
References
12
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04415
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2023

Rivas v. Seward Park Hous. Corp.

William Rivas, a laborer, was injured when a trench wall collapsed while he was working at a depth of approximately 12 feet. He sued Seward Park Housing Corporation, Fred Smith Plumbing and Heating Company, and Onsite Construction Enterprises, asserting a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied Rivas's motion for partial summary judgment on this claim and granted the defendants' cross-motion, dismissing the claim, reasoning that a trench cave-in was not an elevation-related hazard. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, finding that the trench cave-in presented an elevation-related hazard within the contemplation of Labor Law § 240 (1), especially in light of the Court of Appeals decisions in Runner and Wilinski. The court concluded that the defendants failed to provide adequate protection against a gravity-related accident and are liable under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240 (1)trench collapseelevation-related hazardsummary judgmentexcavation accidentconstruction safetygravity-related accidentshoringappellate reviewFirst Department
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pinheiro v. Montrose Improvement District

Plaintiff Joao M. Pinheiro was injured when a trench wall collapsed while he was working on a pipeline installation project. He filed a lawsuit against the defendants, including a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability under this law. On appeal, the Court rejected the plaintiffs' interpretation of Labor Law § 240 (1), ruling that trench collapses are not among the special hazards contemplated by the statute. The order was modified to grant partial summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and affirmed as modified.

Labor Law § 240(1)Trench CollapseFalling Earth and StonesConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityWorkplace SafetyExcavation Safety
References
3
Case No. 2016-07-0325
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2018

Chase, Terry v. Bill Rogers Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning

Mr. Chase, a plumbing helper, requested medical and temporary disability benefits for an injury sustained on March 29, 2017, when a trench collapsed. His employer, Billy Rogers Plumbing, asserted an affirmative defense of willful misconduct, alleging Mr. Chase entered the trench against direct orders. The Court found that Mr. Chase likely would have established an injury arising out of his employment, but Rogers successfully established the elements of its affirmative defense, including Mr. Chase's actual notice of the rule, understanding of the danger, and lack of valid excuse for violating the rule. Consequently, the Court denied Mr. Chase's request for benefits.

Trench CollapseWillful MisconductSafety Rule ViolationTemporary DisabilityMedical Benefits DeniedWorkers' Compensation ClaimEmployer DefenseTennessee LawExpedited HearingPlumbing Industry
References
2
Case No. 08-10-00261-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2012

Nowak Construction Co., Inc. v. Oscar Avalos

Oscar Avalos, an employee of Rocking Q Construction, was seriously injured while working on a sewer rehabilitation project. He sued the general contractor, Nowak Construction Co., Inc., alleging negligence in failing to ensure proper trench safety. A jury found Nowak 100% responsible and awarded Avalos over $4.5 million. Nowak appealed, challenging the theory of liability, the sufficiency of evidence regarding its control over trench safety and negligence, and the jury's damage questions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Nowak waived its premises defect argument, that sufficient evidence supported its control and negligence findings, and that the damage questions were properly submitted.

negligencegeneral contractor liabilitysubcontractor safetytrench collapsepersonal injuryjury verdictappellate reviewinvited error doctrinepremises liabilitynegligent activity
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eatherly Constraction Co. v. Department of Labor & Workforce Development

Eatherly Construction Company appealed a finding by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission that it violated an OSHA regulation by allowing an employee to enter an unprotected excavated trench. The company argued that its foreman, Denzil Evans, who entered the trench, was not an 'employee' under controlling regulations, or alternatively, that his actions constituted employee misconduct. The Davidson County Chancery Court affirmed the Commission's decision, finding Eatherly in violation and liable. This appellate court upheld the Chancery Court's decision, determining that the foreman qualified as an 'employee' under both statutory and regulatory definitions and that Eatherly failed to prove its affirmative defense of employee misconduct. The court also addressed the burden of proof for employee misconduct, holding it to be an affirmative defense resting on the employer.

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)Trenching and ExcavationEmployee Safety RegulationsForeman ResponsibilityEmployer LiabilityWorkplace Safety ViolationsAdministrative AppealsJudicial Review of Agency DecisionsAffirmative DefenseEmployee Misconduct Defense
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 67 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