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
Mar 21, 2011

Waters v. General Board of Global Ministries

Tylie S. Waters sued General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church (GBGM) alleging age discrimination and harassment under the ADEA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Waters claimed various adverse employment actions, including a menial task, cancelled vacation, isolation, performance plan, EAP referral, and a two-day suspension. The court found no evidence of an objectively hostile work environment or that actions were based on Waters' age, noting many supervisors were also in a protected age class. Most alleged actions were not considered materially adverse, and legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons were cited for the suspension. Consequently, the court granted GBGM's motion for summary judgment on all claims.

Age DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentEmployment LawFederal District CourtNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawADEAEmployee PerformanceInsubordination
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 1978

Waters v. Patent Scaffold Co.

This personal injury action arises from Charles Waters' fall from a scaffolding I-beam in 1970, allegedly unbolted by a co-worker. Waters was employed by I. Rosen & Sons, Inc., a masonry subcontractor. The defendants included the general contractor-owner and Patent Scaffold Co., which leased and initially installed the scaffolding. The court determined that Patent Scaffold Co. was an independent supplier, not a contractor, and thus not liable under Labor Law § 240, nor for common-law negligence or strict liability, as the alleged duties devolved upon the subcontractor. The Supreme Court's order partially granting summary judgment to Patent Scaffold Co. was modified to grant summary judgment on all causes of action, and as modified, affirmed.

Personal InjuryScaffolding AccidentLabor Law § 240Summary JudgmentContractor LiabilityLessor LiabilitySubcontractor ResponsibilityConstruction Site SafetyDuty to SuperviseStrict Liability
References
1
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05756 [164 AD3d 660]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2018

James v. Crystal Springs Water

The plaintiff, Robert James, an employee of Manpower Group US, Inc., was injured while working at Crystal Springs Water premises and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits. James then initiated a personal injury action against Crystal Springs Water. Crystal Springs moved for summary judgment, asserting it was James's special employer under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29, which would legally bar a negligence suit. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted this motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the decision, concluding that Crystal Springs had established a prima facie case of special employment based on James's receipt of workers' compensation and Crystal Springs' control over his work details. The plaintiff's contradictory affidavit was deemed insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Employment DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionPersonal Injury LitigationAppellate ReviewEmployer ImmunityGeneral EmployerControl TestConflicting TestimonyNew York Labor Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saratoga County Water Authority v. Gibeault

The County of Saratoga obtained easements for a water line project and retained Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. to assist. The easements were assigned to the plaintiff, a public water authority. Adjacent property owners, the Gibeaults, disputed ownership of some land covered by the easements and filed a correction deed. The plaintiff initiated an action against the Gibeaults seeking judgment under RPAPL article 15 and a declaratory judgment concerning the easements, an injunction, and damages. The Gibeaults counterclaimed, alleging trespass and taking. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a third-party action against Malcolm Pirnie for indemnification and contribution. Supreme Court denied Malcolm Pirnie's cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims against it. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that genuine issues of fact remained regarding Malcolm Pirnie's alleged negligence in procuring the easements, particularly concerning their awareness of the Gibeaults' ownership claims. The court also rejected Malcolm Pirnie's argument of judicial estoppel.

EasementsProperty RightsSummary JudgmentNegligenceIndemnificationContributionJudicial EstoppelBoundary DisputesThird-Party ActionAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 2015-260 K C
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2016

Telsey v. Harris Water Main & Sewer Contrs., Inc.

Jerry Telsey (plaintiff) sued Harris Water Main & Sewer Contractors, Inc. (defendant) in a small claims action for $2,800. Telsey claimed defendant should have immediately determined he didn't need a new water main, despite entering into a contract for installation. Defendant argued that subsurface plumbing issues often require excavation to identify the source of problems. The Civil Court dismissed the action, and Telsey appealed. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reviewed the case under the 'substantial justice' standard for small claims and affirmed the judgment, finding that substantial justice was done between the parties.

Small ClaimsContract DisputeWater Main InstallationSubsurface PlumbingAppellate ReviewSubstantial JusticeCivil CourtKings CountyExcavationAffirmed Judgment
References
4
Case No. 1:00-1898, MDL 1358(SAS), M 21-88, 04-Civ-2389, 04-Civ-5424, 04-Civ-3417, 04-Civ-4968
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2006

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products

This consolidated multi-district litigation (MDL) concerns groundwater contamination by the gasoline additive MTBE and its degradation product, TBA. Defendants moved for summary judgment in several New York actions and one Orange County Water District action, arguing plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because the contamination levels were below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), thus not constituting an "injury-in-fact." The court analyzed whether the MCL defines the scope of a legally protected interest, distinguishing prior cases involving private well owners or those where remediation expenses were not directly linked to contamination. The court concluded that MCLs are regulatory standards for water providers, not a strict definition of what constitutes an injury for tort liability. It determined that contamination below the MCL can still cause a cognizable injury due to monitoring, testing, treatment costs, and issues like taste and odor. The court denied defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that factual disputes remain regarding the extent of plaintiffs' alleged injuries from low-level MTBE contamination, making a summary judgment ruling premature.

Groundwater ContaminationMTBE LitigationTertiary Butyl Alcohol (TBA)Product LiabilityMulti-District Litigation (MDL)Article III StandingSummary JudgmentMaximum Contaminant Level (MCL)Environmental LawWater Quality Standards
References
60
Case No. 533860
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Quinton Waters

Quinton Waters, a station agent, was injured in a bicycle accident while traveling to an overtime assignment. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially deemed the claim compensable under the 'special errand' exception. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, ruling that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment and did not fall under the 'outside employee' exception. The Appellate Division found that the Board failed to address the 'special errand' exception, which was the WCLJ's original basis for awarding benefits. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to determine the applicability of the special errand exception.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Errand ExceptionOutside Employee ExceptionScope of EmploymentTravel to Work InjuryOvertime AssignmentBicycle AccidentTraumatic Brain InjuryBoard ReversalAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. CV-24-1249
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

Matter of McGann v. Suffolk County Water Auth.

Frank McGann, a retired senior meter reader, filed a workers' compensation claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, which he attributed to his employment with Suffolk County Water Authority. Both his treating physician, Harold Avella, and the employer's orthopedic consultant, Steven Goodman, opined that the condition was causally related to his work, even after considering his post-retirement pickleball activities. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed the decision, deeming the medical evidence insufficient and not credible. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board misread the record and failed to properly consider the physicians' confirmed opinions after being apprised of all relevant facts. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeCausationMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard Decision ReversedRemittedRepetitive Stress Injury
References
5
Case No. 2014-1124 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2017

Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v. Nationwide Ins.

The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which had granted summary judgment to Nationwide Ins. The case involved Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C.'s action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. Nationwide Ins. successfully argued that it properly reimbursed the plaintiff for acupuncture services using the workers' compensation fee schedule applicable to chiropractors providing similar services. The appellate court found sufficient proof of timely mailing of claim denials and full payment according to the fee schedule. A new contention raised by the plaintiff for the first time on appeal was not considered by the court.

no-fault insuranceacupuncture servicesworkers' compensation fee schedulesummary judgmentappellate reviewclaim denialtimely mailingreimbursementmedical servicesfirst-party benefits
References
4
Case No. 2017-635 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2019

Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v. GEICO Ins. Co.

In this case, Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C., acting as assignee, sought to recover no-fault benefits from GEICO Ins. Co. The Civil Court initially denied GEICO's cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims concerning unpaid benefits. On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision. The Appellate Term found that GEICO had timely denied the claims and correctly applied the workers' compensation fee schedule for the services in question. Consequently, GEICO's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiff's claims.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAppellate ReviewInsurance ClaimsTimely DenialAssigned ClaimsMedical Provider ReimbursementCivil CourtAppellate Term Decision
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 403 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