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. 2018 NY Slip Op 05102 [163 AD3d 1449]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2018

Matter of Lift Line, Inc. (Amalgamated Tr. Union, Local 282)

This case involves an appeal to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, concerning an arbitration award related to an employee's termination. The Supreme Court had partially vacated an arbitrator's decision to reinstate a grievant with back pay and benefits, reimposing the original penalty of employment termination. The Appellate Division reviewed whether the arbitrator's award was irrational or exceeded his power under CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii), considering a collective bargaining agreement's "just cause" provision and an attendance policy. The court found that the arbitrator's determination, which considered the specific facts of the grievant's one-minute tardiness, offered a "colorable justification" and was not irrational. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied the petition to vacate, granted the application to confirm, and fully confirmed the arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee TerminationJust Cause StandardAttendance PolicyJudicial Review of ArbitrationCPLR Article 75Appellate Division DecisionLabor DisputeReinstatement with Back Pay
References
13
Case No. VNO 0461030
Regular
Nov 30, 2007

CHRISTOPHER MENDEZ vs. GRAY LIFT, INCORPORATED, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior award and returned the case for further proceedings to determine the general employer's (Lyon Lift, Inc.) potential liability for the applicant's injury. This is to address whether Lyon had duties under workplace safety laws (Labor Code sections 6400-6404) and if its negligence, if any, contributed to the injury caused by a defective saw provided by the special employer. The Board will then determine if Lyon is entitled to a third-party credit for the applicant's settlement based on its own negligence and established credit principles.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardThird-party creditGeneral employerSpecial employerImputation of negligenceLabor Code sections 6400-6404Workplace safetyPrimary employerSecondary employerDual employment
References
5
Case No. SJO 0227040
Regular
Nov 15, 2007

LISA HOLDERMAN vs. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA/SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded a prior award, and found no serious and willful misconduct by the employer. While the employer had knowledge of a dangerous condition involving lifting a disabled child's wheelchair, their actions, including requests for a specialized van, were deemed a grossly careless omission rather than the deliberate, quasi-criminal conduct required for serious and willful misconduct. Consequently, the applicant is not entitled to the 50% increase in compensation previously awarded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardserious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardchildren's counselor/aideindustrial injuryleft shoulderright footspine
References
11
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05651 [187 AD3d 1662]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2020

Shaw v. Scepter, Inc.

Mark A. Shaw, the plaintiff, sustained injuries while attempting to unload a man lift from a flatbed truck on the defendant Scepter, Inc.'s property. The incident occurred when the lift unexpectedly rolled off the flatbed, causing the lift's basket to fall and injure Shaw. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment, dismissing Shaw's claims under Labor Law, which was subsequently appealed. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating Shaw's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and a portion of his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court found that issues of fact existed regarding whether the lift was defective and if the defendant had notice of such a defect, thus precluding summary judgment for either party on these specific claims.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentMan Lift AccidentConstruction Site SafetyElevation-Related RiskIndustrial Code ViolationsWorker InjuryFlatbed TruckAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

SCAC Transport (USA) Inc. v. S.S. Danaos

This case addresses two summary judgment motions concerning a 1977 shipping accident where a truck and lift were damaged. The vessel owner, Danais Shipping Company, and the charterers, Big Lift USA, Inc. and Big Lift Shipping (N.A.) Inc., sought summary judgment against Universal Maritime Service Corp., the stevedoring company. They argued that Universal should be bound by findings from a prior London arbitration, which held Universal negligent, through the common law practice of 'vouching in.' The court, however, denied both motions. It ruled that Universal, having not consented to or adequately participated in the arbitration, was not collaterally estopped from litigating the factual issues in the judicial forum.

Collateral EstoppelArbitrationVouching InIndemnificationSummary JudgmentStevedore NegligenceCharter AgreementMaritime LawContractual PrivityFull and Fair Opportunity
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wachtel v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

The plaintiff, Mr. Wachtel, sued his health insurance carrier, Empire (previously Metropolitan), for reimbursement of a manually operated wheelchair for his wife, Carrie R. Wachtel, who suffers from multiple sclerosis. Although the insurer had provided a motorized wheelchair, Mrs. Wachtel's Orthodox Jewish faith precludes its use on the Jewish Sabbath. The court considered whether the insurer could be compelled to provide an additional benefit based on religious beliefs. It found that the insurer's definition of 'medically necessary' lacked clear exclusions applicable to this situation. Therefore, the court ruled that the manual wheelchair was medically necessary given Mrs. Wachtel's inability to use the motorized chair one day a week due to religious tenets, and entered judgment for the plaintiff.

Religious AccommodationHealth Insurance CoverageMedical NecessityWheelchair ReimbursementOrthodox JudaismSabbath ObservanceInsurance Contract InterpretationDiscrimination in InsuranceMultiple SclerosisSmall Claims Court
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 1987

Lunde v. Nichols Yacht Sales, Inc.

In this personal injury action, the plaintiff, an employee of Nichols Yacht Yard Inc., suffered a hand injury while attempting to fix a malfunctioning boat lift. The defendant, also located on the premises, had employees instruct the plaintiff, who was not part of the trained 'yard crew,' to launch a boat using a 'big lift' when no trained personnel were available. The lift malfunctioned due to a displaced cable, and as the plaintiff attempted to correct it per defendant's instructions, his hand was pulled into a pulley. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, found the defendant 95% at fault, based on a jury verdict. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the defendant, as an owner or general contractor, owed a duty to provide a safe workplace under Labor Law §200, and that the jury's finding was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySafe Workplace DutyLabor Law §200Jury VerdictAppellate ReviewComparative NegligenceBoat Lift AccidentEmployer LiabilityExpert Witness Testimony
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jenkins v. Northwood Rehabilitation & Extended Care Facility

The plaintiff, a physical therapist with a long-standing back condition, sued her prospective employer, Highgate Manor, for disability discrimination after they rescinded her job offer. Highgate deemed her inability to perform maximum assist lifts, requiring her to lift 50-100 pounds, an essential function of the physical therapist role. Despite considering accommodations such as assigning an aide or using mechanical lifts, Highgate concluded these were impractical, burdensome, or unsafe for patient care. The court, presided over by Senior District Judge Munson, applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test and granted Highgate's motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff was not a "qualified individual" as she could not perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation. Federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and state law claims without prejudice.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActEmployment LawReasonable AccommodationEssential Job FunctionsSummary JudgmentPhysical TherapyBack InjuryHiring PracticesMcDonnell Douglas Test
References
14
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01026 [180 AD3d 505]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2020

Lind v. Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y.

Plaintiff Earl Lind Jr. was injured while operating an articulating lift during construction of the World Trade Center's Vehicle Security Center, when the lift skidded on a sludge-covered ramp and crashed. Plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims, which the Supreme Court denied. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order, granting partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The court found defendants, including Tishman Construction Corporation, liable as statutory "agents" of the project owner, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, due to their broad responsibility for job site safety. Plaintiff's testimony established prima facie that the lift was a safety device whose failure proximately caused his elevation-related injury.

Construction site injuryWorkplace safetyLabor LawStatutory agentSummary judgmentAppellate DivisionPersonal injuryElevation riskWorld Trade CenterConstruction management
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Krull v. United States

Michael Krull, an employee of JJJ Express Mail, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained on October 17, 2007, while delivering mail to the Irving Post Office. Krull alleged negligence by the United States Postal Service (USPS) after renovations to the post office's rear door created a safety hazard. The new outward-opening door obstructed a steel plate on a hoist lift, forcing Krull to manually lift the heavy plate multiple times daily, which allegedly caused a lower back injury. The government moved for summary judgment, arguing Krull could not establish negligence and that his injury resulted from an ordinary hazard of employment. The court denied the government's motion, finding that lifting the steel plate was not part of Krull's regular duties and that USPS's alteration prevented him from performing his work as intended, thus raising a genuine issue of material fact regarding negligence.

Federal Tort Claims ActNegligenceSummary JudgmentLandowner DutyForeseeabilityPersonal InjuryWorkplace InjuryPostal ServiceHoist LiftDoor Renovation
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 254 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