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
Feb 09, 1995

Hickey v. C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc.

Plaintiff Roland E. Hickey, a labor supervisor, was injured after falling from a plank across a sluiceway at a dam construction site. He and his wife sued the owner, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (NY-SEG), and the general contractor, C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The defendants then filed a third-party action against Hickey's employer, Prepakt Concrete Company, for contribution and indemnification. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of strict liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants cross-moved to dismiss this claim, asserting the "recalcitrant worker" defense. The Supreme Court denied both motions, finding unresolved factual questions. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' motion, agreeing that factual issues persisted regarding whether adequate safety devices were provided and whether the plaintiff refused to use them, or if the plank itself was unauthorized and its use prohibited.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentRecalcitrant WorkerFall from HeightSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityIndemnificationContribution
References
2
Case No. 83 Civ. 4932
Regular Panel Decision

Caloumeno v. McGowan

This case, brought under the LMRDA, involves plaintiff George Caloumeno and several defendants. Caloumeno moved for summary judgment on his first and seventh causes of action, related to fair hearing and breach of contract. Defendants counter-moved for summary judgment to add Metropolitan Region II as a counterclaim plaintiff, on their counterclaims for conversion, and to dismiss Caloumeno’s LMRDA claims. The court denied the motion to join Metropolitan Region II. It also denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment on the fair hearing claims due to unresolved issues of material fact. The court dismissed the breach of contract claim as not actionable under LMRDA per se, and denied summary judgment on the LMRDA free speech and equal rights claims, citing unresolved issues of motivation and intent. Ultimately, the court denied all outstanding motions for summary judgment, stating that the remaining claims (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, and 17) must proceed to trial.

LMRDASummary JudgmentFair Hearing RightsBreach of ContractFree Speech RightsEqual RightsUnion DisciplineInternal Union AffairsConversionUnbiased Tribunal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
Case No. GRO 32603 GRO 33231
Regular
Nov 20, 2007

JAMES CANALES vs. RICE DRYWALL, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded prior findings and remanded the case due to significant procedural and evidentiary deficiencies. Specifically, the Board highlighted the lack of a proper hearing record, ambiguity regarding the commencement date for temporary disability payments, and an unresolved issue concerning an attorney's fee award for an EDD lien. The WCJ must now address these issues before issuing new decisions.

Labor Code section 4656(c)(1)temporary disability indemnity104-week limitmultiple injuriesdelayed treatmentEmployment Development Department (EDD) lienattorney's feecumulative traumadate of injurydate of commencement of temporary disability payment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jensen v. Linde Hydraulics Corp.

Plaintiff Daniel Jensen was injured at work and received a Workers’ Compensation award, listing Illinois Glove Company and Cayadutta Tanning Company, Inc. as employers. Jensen subsequently filed separate negligence actions against both companies. Both defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy, but these motions were denied and affirmed on a prior appeal due to an unresolved factual issue regarding Jensen’s employment status. Cayadutta Tanning Company, Inc. then moved for a severance on the issue of the identity of plaintiff's employer, which was denied by Special Term. The Appellate Division affirmed this denial, finding no abuse of discretion, but emphasized that the employment issue should be tried before all other matters pursuant to CPLR 4011.

SeveranceEmployment StatusWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentAbuse of DiscretionFactual IssueAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureTrial OrderJudicial Discretion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v. Gray

Plaintiff Lloyds of London issued a commercial liability policy to Cathy Gray, which contained an exclusion for injuries sustained by employees of independent contractors. When an employee of a subcontractor, Elizardo Valdez, was injured on Gray's property and filed a Labor Law action, Lloyds of London initiated a process to disclaim coverage. The insurer received the complaint on May 16, 2005, and issued its disclaimer on July 11, 2005, a total of 56 days later. The court reviewed whether this delay in disclaiming coverage was reasonable, highlighting unresolved factual issues regarding when the insurer should have known the grounds for disclaimer and the diligence of its investigation. The decision affirmed the denial of Lloyds of London's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the timeliness of the disclaimer had not been established as a matter of law.

Insurance LawDisclaimer of CoverageTimelinessSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCommercial Liability PolicyIndependent Contractor ExclusionDuty to InvestigateNotice of ClaimFactual Dispute
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Domanico v. Woodmere Fire District

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 4, 2005, which denied an employer's request for reimbursement of wages paid to a claimant during a period of disability. The court examined whether a June 24, 2004 notice, issued by the self-insured employer, Woodmere Fire District, containing language about reimbursement, was sufficient as a request under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a). The court found the notice to be sufficient in form. However, a critical issue remained regarding the timeliness of this request; specifically, whether it was filed prior to the compensation award made at the January 7, 2005 hearing. Due to this unresolved issue, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to determine the timeliness of the reimbursement request.

Workers' Compensation ReimbursementEmployer Wage ReimbursementDisability WagesTimeliness of Reimbursement RequestWorkers' Compensation LawBoard Decision AppealJudicial ReversalRemittal for Further ProceedingsNew York Workers' CompensationStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1989

Claim of Kass v. Club Mart of America, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board directed the Special Disability Fund to pay benefits for a claimant's back and knee injury, acknowledging preexisting hypertension and diabetes. The employer's carrier sought reimbursement from the Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d). A legislative amendment in July 1987 eliminated the employer's knowledge requirement for reimbursement from the Fund, and the Board subsequently resolved that this amendment applied to all open cases where the knowledge issue was not finally determined by that date. The Fund appealed the Board's decision, contending the amendment should not apply retroactively to claims filed before its effective date, thus requiring proof of employer knowledge. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing established law that amended statutes appropriately apply to pending proceedings without constitutional issues, given the employer knowledge issue was still unresolved.

Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d)Special Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting Physical ImpairmentEmployer Knowledge RequirementStatutory Amendment ApplicationRetroactive Application of LawPending ProceedingsAppellate ReviewPermanent Partial Disability
References
3
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00194 [223 AD3d 747]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2024

Ochoa v. JEM Real Estate Co., LLC

Carlos Ochoa, the plaintiff, sustained personal injuries after falling from an A-frame ladder while working at a building owned by JEM Real Estate Co., LLC, and leased by Bobwhite Counter, LLC. He commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted Ochoa's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law claims. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of a defective ladder in violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The court also upheld the denial of summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim due to unresolved factual issues regarding Industrial Code violations.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLadder AccidentWorkplace SafetyConstruction AccidentStatutory ViolationProximate CauseNondelegable Duty
References
14
Case No. ADJ7469391
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

DANIEL DIAZ NEGRON vs. CLEAR WATER HANDWASH dba MARINA CLASSIC CAR WASH, STATE FARM

This case involves a lien claimant, Best of California Business Promotions, whose petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it was based on an assumed dismissal of their lien that had not actually occurred. The lien claimant failed to appear at a scheduled lien trial and did not provide good cause for their absence. Furthermore, the Appeals Board is issuing a notice of intention to impose sanctions up to $1,000 against the lien claimant and its representatives for filing a frivolous petition and wasting judicial resources by arguing an issue not supported by the record. The Board is also removing the case on its own motion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of RemovalSanctionsLabor Code 5813Lien ClaimantNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienNon-Appearance at TrialLien Activation FeeUnconstitutional
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 8,886 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