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

Boots v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Peter and Cindy Boots filed a products liability action against Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., alleging injury to Peter Boots from a defective utility knife. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting no manufacturing defect, no design defect as the proximate cause, substantial modification of the product, and that Plaintiff's own negligence was the sole proximate cause. The court denied the motion for summary judgment on the manufacturing defect claim, finding the plaintiff's expert report admissible. It also denied summary judgment on the design defect claim due to misleading design, and rejected the substantial modification argument. Finally, the court denied the proximate cause argument, as it was not established that Plaintiff's actions were the *sole* cause of injury.

Products LiabilitySummary JudgmentManufacturing DefectDesign DefectProximate CauseExpert WitnessUtility KnifeStrict LiabilityProduct SafetyFederal Civil Procedure
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp.

Justice Saxe dissents from the majority's decision to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the defendant's motion for summary judgment should be denied. The dissent contends that the sidewalk defect, a quarter-inch protruding metal object, is not trivial and presents an actionable tripping hazard, citing precedents that reject a minimal dimension test for defects. Furthermore, the dissent asserts that the defendant's claim of lack of notice is insufficient to establish an absence of constructive notice, especially given that the defect was present since a new sidewalk installation over two years prior to the accident. Justice Saxe distinguishes the current case from prior trivial defect cases, emphasizing that the defect here constitutes a potential trap or snare, thus raising a question of fact for a jury.

Sidewalk DefectTrivial Defect DoctrineSummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeTripping HazardPremises LiabilityPersonal InjuryDuty to Maintain PropertyIndependent Contractor LiabilityAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. ADJ2661083 (AHM 0097587) ADJ2316310 (AHM 0088976)
Regular
Oct 06, 2014

GENEEN RODRIGUEZ vs. STATEK CORPORATION, ACE USA

This case involves defendant Statek Corporation's petition for reconsideration of an award granting applicant Geneen Rodriguez a spinal cord stimulator. The Administrative Law Judge found the utilization review (UR) determination materially defective due to communication issues and the reviewer's specialty. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and found the UR determination was not materially defective. The Board concluded that any alleged defects were not significant enough to bypass the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process.

Utilization ReviewSpinal Cord StimulatorMaterially DefectiveIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code Section 4610Medical NecessityCompetency of ReviewerInternal MedicineTimely CommunicationDubon v. World Restoration
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palomino v. Winck

A longshoreman, referred to as the libelant, was injured aboard the respondent's vessel when a wooden crate being lowered caught his right ankle. The libelant claimed the injury was due to unseaworthiness or negligence, specifically implying a defective winch. However, no evidence of a defective winch was presented, nor was expert testimony offered to support the claim. The court distinguished this case from Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc., where evidence of a defective winch was provided. Ultimately, the court concluded that the libelant failed to sustain his burden of proof, and thus, the claim was denied.

longshoreman injuryunseaworthinessnegligence claimburden of proofmaritime lawdefective equipmentvessel accidentDistrict Court decisionadmiralty lawlack of evidence
References
1
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00638
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2015

Williamson v. Ogden Cap Properties, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they lacked constructive notice of a defective mailbox panel, as they never inspected it. Their alleged lack of a key was not determinative, as a cursory inspection might have revealed the defect. The court also found that defendants failed to demonstrate their negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. Ultimately, plaintiff's testimony and a witness statement created an issue of fact regarding the defect's duration and discoverability, necessitating a trial.

Summary JudgmentConstructive NoticePremises LiabilityMailbox Panel DefectAppellate ReviewProximate CauseIssue of FactNegligencePostal Worker AccidentProperty Maintenance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Carlo v. Clyde Bergemann US, Inc.

The plaintiff initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained from a ladder fall. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability concerning the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The court determined that while the plaintiff presented evidence of a defective ladder, they failed to establish that these defects were the proximate cause of the fall. This decision aligns with precedents requiring proof that the absence or defect of a safety device directly caused the injuries, citing cases such as Felker v Corning Inc.

Labor Law § 240(1)Negligence ActionLadder AccidentSummary Judgment MotionProximate CausationElevated WorkSafety Device DefectPersonal Injury ClaimWorkplace AccidentJudicial Review
References
4
Case No. ADJ9070770
Regular
Jun 10, 2014

OSCAR GARCIA-PICEN vs. TIGHT QUARTERS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior ruling ordering viscosupplementation injections for an applicant's knee injury. The WCAB found the prior ruling, which deemed the defendant's utilization review (UR) denial defective due to a missing signature, to be based on an incorrect premise as the UR physician did sign the report. However, the WCAB noted the UR physician may not have been aware of the applicant's second surgery, potentially rendering the UR defective for other reasons. The case was returned to the trial level for further consideration, with a dissenting opinion arguing the UR was demonstrably defective for omitting key medical history and the treatment should have been affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOscar Garcia-PicenTight QuartersInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ9070770Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationViscosupplementation injectionsUtilization Review (UR) denialDefective UR
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Villapol v. American Landmark Management

Claimant, an elevator operator, sustained serious injuries after falling into an empty elevator shaft due to a defective elevator parking device, despite being severely intoxicated. The Workers' Compensation Board granted benefits, finding the injury was not solely caused by intoxication but partly by the defective device. The employer appealed, arguing intoxication was the sole cause. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing the statutory presumption against intoxication as the sole cause and ample evidence of the defective elevator as a contributing factor. The court also found harmless error in denying claimant's testimony and no abuse of discretion in denying full Board review.

Elevator AccidentIntoxication DefenseDefective EquipmentStatutory PresumptionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionCausationHarmless ErrorFull Board Review Denial
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gugliemini v. Conigliaro

Plaintiff, a truck driver, sought employment and was directed to Winona Trucking Construction Company and Lane Construction Company. Lane assigned him to work, but he had to get a truck from Winona. After a two-week delay, Winona provided a defective truck. Plaintiff reported the defect to both Winona and the defendant, but neither repaired it, and Winona stated no other trucks were available. Faced with the choice of working with a defective truck or not working, plaintiff continued. The dissenting judge argues that plaintiff should not be charged with contributory negligence as a matter of law, citing precedents where individuals in a dilemma are not automatically negligent. The judge concludes that the question of contributory negligence was for the jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and this verdict should stand.

Truck driverDefective equipmentContributory negligenceJury verdictEmployment dilemmaDissenting opinionWorkers' rightsEmployer responsibilityWork safety
References
2
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 08814 [134 AD3d 685]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2015

Maggio v. Town of Hempstead

The plaintiff, Vincenzo Maggio, sought damages for personal injuries after allegedly tripping on a roadway defect. He filed an action against the Town of Hempstead, which subsequently moved for summary judgment, asserting it lacked prior written notice of the defect and did not create the hazardous condition. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the Town's motion. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the Town successfully demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The Appellate Division concluded that the plaintiff failed to present a triable issue of fact to counter the Town's claims, specifically regarding the creation of the defect, deeming the opposing affidavits speculative.

Personal injuryTrip and fallRoadway defectPrior written noticeSummary judgmentMunicipal liabilityAffirmative negligenceSpecial use doctrineAppellate reviewNassau County
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 948 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