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. 15 Civ. 7543 (NSR)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Safe Step Walk in Tub Co. v. CKH Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Safe Step Walk In Tub Co. sued Defendant CKH Industries, Inc. for non-payment of marketing fees. CKH counter-claimed, alleging violations of franchise laws, breach of agreements, unfair business practices, and fraud. Safe Step moved to dismiss CKH’s counter-claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It determined that the relationship between the parties could plausibly constitute a franchisor-franchisee relationship under the FTC Rule and various state laws, allowing certain counter-claims to proceed. However, claims under New York and Rhode Island's "Little FTC" Acts, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition were dismissed. The court also held that Tennessee law governs the contract disputes, while state franchise laws apply where Defendant's franchises are located. Additionally, the court found that oral modifications and part performance could sustain certain contract claims despite written-only modification clauses.

Franchise LawBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionFraudMotion to DismissChoice of LawFederal Trade Commission ActState Franchise ActsPromissory EstoppelUnjust Enrichment
References
87
Case No. ADJ870019 (SFO 0455266) ADJ3218516 (SFO 0428166) ADJ322513 (SFO 0423213)
Regular
Oct 05, 2015

LINDA LECHNER vs. MARIN GENERAL HOSPITAL, ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Board granted reconsideration of the award for self-procured medical expenses for a walk-in bathtub. The applicant failed to provide a proper request for authorization (DWC Form RFA) from her treating physician. Therefore, the defendant was not obligated to conduct utilization review for the bathtub. The case is returned to the trial level for the applicant's physician to submit a correct request for retrospective authorization.

Utilization ReviewDWC Form RFAPrimary Treating PhysicianWalk-in BathtubSelf-Procured Medical ExpensesPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental Findings and AwardRetrospective ReviewMedical NecessityIndustrial Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ashby v. ARC Electric Corp.

The claimant, a 56-year-old assistant foreman with a pre-existing coronary condition, suffered a heart injury after walking up 9 to 10 flights of stairs at his job site to distribute pay envelopes. An elevator was available, but the claimant chose to walk leisurely. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that the claimant’s work activities were stressful and constituted an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, and that his disability was causally related to this injury. The board's finding was supported by substantial evidence and medical evidence regarding causal effect. The appellate court affirmed the decision, stating that the claimant's choice to walk the stairs instead of taking the elevator was not significant.

Workers' CompensationHeart InjuryAccidental InjuryEmployment-RelatedPre-existing ConditionCausationAppellate DecisionMedical EvidenceStair ClimbingOccupational Stress
References
2
Case No. ADJ7516841
Regular
Mar 05, 2012

KAREN SHAW vs. CAST & CREW ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns applicant Karen Shaw's claim for workers' compensation benefits after she slipped and broke her wrist and ankle while walking to a bookstore in San Francisco. The defendant, Cast & Crew Entertainment Services, Inc., argued the injury was not compensable, citing the going-and-coming rule and the bunkhouse rule. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that Shaw's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment under the commercial traveler rule. The Board determined that Shaw's walk, while on an extended business trip and on call, was a reasonable expectancy of her employment, even if considered personal activity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKaren ShawCast & Crew Entertainment ServicesInc.Zurich North AmericaADJ7516841San Franciscogoing and coming rulebunkhouse ruleMotion Picture Health Plan
References
11
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00201
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2018

Matter of Leah VV. (Theresa WW.)

This case involves an appeal from Family Court's dismissal of a neglect petition against Theresa WW., mother of five children. The petition was filed by Sullivan County Department of Family Services after the youngest child tragically drowned in the bathtub while left unattended by the mother. Family Court initially found that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of neglect. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, concluding that leaving a 16-month-old child unattended in a bathtub for 1 to 10 minutes constitutes an intrinsically dangerous act and establishes neglect. The matter was remitted to Family Court for a dispositional hearing.

Child NeglectChild DrowningParental SupervisionPrima Facie CaseAppellate ReviewFamily Court Act Article 10Reversal of DecisionDispositional HearingUnattended ChildPreponderance of Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2007

Claim of Kontogiannis v. Nationwide PC

Claimant, while on an authorized break from her Manhattan workplace, fell on a public sidewalk near her building, injuring her shoulder and knee. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established her claim for benefits. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, ruling that leaving the office for a walk constituted a significant interruption of her work activities, thus denying her claim. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, citing precedents that short breaks do not interrupt employment and that the employer retains constructive control. The court found that the claimant's brief departure for a walk was not a purely personal mission negating the employer's control, and therefore the Board's determination was not supported by substantial evidence. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Authorized BreakSlip and FallCausally Related InjuryCourse of EmploymentConstructive ControlPersonal MissionAppellate ReviewBoard Decision ReversedSidewalk Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adams v. ALCOA, INC.

In this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a class of aluminum factory workers alleged that Alcoa Inc. failed to compensate them for activities like arriving early, donning and doffing protective gear, walking to work, and showering. Alcoa moved for summary judgment, arguing these activities were not compensable. The Court, applying the Second Circuit's narrow interpretation of 'integral and indispensable' activities under the Portal-to-Portal Act, found that the protective equipment was neither indispensable (as employees could change at home) nor integral (as the workplace was not a 'lethal atmosphere'). Consequently, the time spent on these activities, including associated walking and showering, was deemed non-compensable. The Court therefore granted Alcoa's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of the Plaintiffs' claims.

Fair Labor Standards ActSummary JudgmentDonning and DoffingProtective Personal EquipmentCompensable WorkPortal-to-Portal ActIntegral and Indispensable TestLethal Atmosphere DoctrineWage and Hour ClaimsEmployer Liability
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2001

McDaniel v. Fischione Construction Co.

The plaintiff, an employee of Keith Ramsey Drywall Services, Inc., was injured after falling from stacked drywall walk-ups while installing drywall. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), determining that the walk-ups failed to provide proper protection and rejecting the defendant's recalcitrant worker defense. The court also granted Fischione Construction Co., Inc.'s motion for common-law indemnification against Keith Ramsey Drywall Services, Inc., as Fischione only exercised general supervisory authority over the work site. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding that Supreme Court properly granted both the plaintiff's cross-motion and Fischione's motion for summary judgment.

Labor Law § 240(1) ViolationStacked Walk-ups FailureWorker SafetyPremises LiabilityThird-Party IndemnificationSupervisory AuthorityAppellate ReviewConstruction Site InjurySummary Judgment MotionUnsafe Practices
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aldrich v. St. Joseph's Hospital

Claimant, a licensed practical nurse, sought workers' compensation benefits for a bone spur in her foot and knee, which she attributed to repetitive walking required by her job since 1990. After an initial controversion, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge established the case for occupational disease, notice, and causal relationship, awarding benefits. This decision was affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending the condition was not a compensable occupational disease under Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (15). The court found substantial evidence, including medical testimony, to support the Board's finding of a recognizable link between the claimant's condition and the distinctive feature of her occupation, specifically extensive walking on hard floors. Therefore, the decision finding a compensable occupational disease was affirmed.

Occupational DiseaseBone SpurLicensed Practical NurseRepetitive WalkingCausal RelationshipWorkers' Compensation LawMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewFoot and Knee PainWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02968 [205 AD3d 441]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2022

Vitucci v. Durst Pyramid LLC

Plaintiff Rino Vitucci sustained injuries after falling from a bathtub rim while installing a shower-curtain rod. The accident occurred because there was insufficient space to use an A-frame ladder and the bathroom was dimly lit, forcing him to stand on the tub's edge for leverage. The Appellate Division modified a prior Supreme Court order, affirming summary judgment for plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Durst Pyramid LLC and Hunter Roberts Construction Group, L.L.C., finding the bathtub rim served as an elevated work platform. However, the court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court also denied Fred Geller Electrical, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims due to factual issues regarding its responsibility for lighting, and granted Durst/Hunter conditional summary judgment on their contractual indemnification cross claims against Geller. A dissenting opinion argued there was a factual dispute on whether Labor Law § 240 (1) applied, suggesting plaintiff could have performed the work from a lower elevation.

Labor Law § 240 (1) ClaimSummary JudgmentElevation-related RiskScaffold LawContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial Code ViolationBiomechanical Expert TestimonyRecalcitrant Worker DefenseProximate Cause
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 88 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