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 20, 2024

Brown v. Window King LLC

Plaintiff Mary Elena Brown sustained personal injuries when a screwdriver dropped by a window installer, Wilson Rivera, hit her head in a parking lot of a condominium building managed by Stillman Management Inc. The installer was working for Window King LLC. Stillman moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty, but the court found questions of fact regarding its control over the premises. Window King also sought summary judgment, contending Rivera was an independent contractor, but issues of fact arose regarding Rivera's employment status and potential vicarious liability. The Supreme Court initially granted Window King's motion and denied Stillman's. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating Stillman's cross-claims against Window King, and otherwise affirmed, finding unresolved factual disputes regarding both Stillman's duty of maintenance and Window King's potential vicarious liability for Rivera's negligence.

Summary judgmentPersonal injuryVicarious liabilityRespondeat superiorIndependent contractorProperty managementPremises liabilityAppellate reviewCross-claimsTort liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williamson v. 16 West 57th Street Co.

Bernard Williamson, a window cleaner employed by Audobon Window Cleaning, Inc., sustained grave injuries after falling from a ledge while cleaning windows at premises owned by 16 West 57th Street Co. and leased by Mother Works, Inc. Williamson, through his guardian, sued the owner and lessee alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 202, and 240. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240 liability. The defendants appealed, contending Labor Law § 240 was inapplicable to window cleaners and preempted by Labor Law § 202. The appellate court affirmed that Labor Law § 240 applies to professional window cleaners and is not preempted by Labor Law § 202, but granted summary judgment to the appellants dismissing the Labor Law § 202 cause of action due to a lack of demonstrated violation.

Window Cleaner InjuryFall AccidentLabor Law ApplicationStatutory PreemptionBuilding Owner LiabilityLessee LiabilitySummary Judgment RulingWorkplace SafetyElevation-Related RiskNew York Appellate Court
References
23
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02559
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2022

Ortega v. Panther Siding & Windows, Inc.

The plaintiff Rene Ortega was injured after falling from a roof while working as a foreman for a subcontractor, Golden Hammer Construction Group, Corp., which was working for Panther Siding & Windows, Inc. Ortega sued Panther Siding & Windows, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law sections and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision. The court found that Panther Siding & Windows, Inc., established it was neither the general contractor nor an agent of the owner at the accident site, thus lacking the nondelegable duty under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Ortega failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryFall from heightLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractor LiabilitySubcontractorConstruction AccidentElevation-related riskSafety devices
References
4
Case No. ADJ6693720
Regular
Mar 15, 2010

KERRY NECHODOM vs. CITY OF GROVER BEACH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the date of injury for Kerry Nechodom's right shoulder injury in case ADJ6693720 from February 3, 2007 - September 10, 2009 to August 12, 2008 - September 10, 2009. This amendment acknowledges a separate cumulative trauma injury due to distinct periods of disability and lack of continuous treatment between injuries. The Board affirmed the original award, finding that the applicant sustained two separate cumulative trauma injuries causing distinct periods of temporary disability. The employer's arguments regarding the cumulative trauma period and Labor Code $\S 4656$ limitations were addressed and resolved by this clarification.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKerry NechodomCity of Grover BeachADJ6693720ADJ5791464ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderCumulative Injury
References
11
Case No. ADJ2719991 (VNO 0485134) ADJ1334047 (VNO 0428744)
Regular
Aug 20, 2009

Catalina Barajas vs. WELLPOINT HEALTH NETWORK, INC., ZURICH LOS ANGELES

This case involves an applicant who initially sustained a cumulative trauma injury to her upper extremities during a period covered by one insurer. After returning to work with modified duties, she experienced a recurrence and worsening of symptoms, necessitating further treatment and surgery, which the Board now recognizes as a separate cumulative trauma injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the prior finding of a single cumulative trauma injury. The Board held that distinct periods of compensable temporary or permanent disability, as established by medical evidence and treatment, demarcate separate cumulative trauma injuries, aligning with the *Rodarte* precedent. Consequently, the applicant was found to have sustained two separate cumulative trauma injuries, each attributed to different insurance coverage periods.

cumulative traumaanti-merger doctrineLabor Code sections 3208.25303Rodartecompensable temporary disabilitypermanent disabilitywage lossmodified workbilateral upper extremities
References
3
Case No. ADJ7811907
Regular
Jul 10, 2017

KYLE PIKE vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of San Diego's petition for reconsideration, affirming an award of temporary disability and salary continuation benefits to Kyle Pike. Despite the benefits extending beyond five years from the injury date, the Board found applicant's temporary disability commenced within that period and was limited to 104 weeks. This decision aligns with a judicial interpretation that allows such awards when a timely petition to reopen is filed and benefits begin within the statutory five-year window. The dissenting opinion argued that Labor Code section 4656(c)(2) strictly prohibits temporary disability payments beyond five years from the injury date for injuries after January 1, 2008.

Labor Code section 4850temporary disability benefitsPetition to ReopenLabor Code section 4656(c)(2)five-year limitation104 weeksDeputy Sheriff Detentiondate of injurycontinuing jurisdictionnew and further disability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2003

Sowa v. S.J.N.H. Realty Corp.

The plaintiff, a hairdresser working at a nursing home, suffered head injuries when a window fell. She initiated a personal injury action, and the Supreme Court granted her leave to amend her complaint to include Labor Law claims directly against the third-party defendants, while denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court found the defendants lacked notice of any dangerous condition and dismissed the plaintiff's negligence claim. Additionally, it ruled that the plaintiff's Labor Law claims against the third-party defendants were time-barred and legally insufficient because she was not considered "employed" under the Labor Law and failed to cite specific safety violations. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityLabor LawSummary JudgmentRes Ipsa LoquiturRelation-Back DoctrineStatute of LimitationsIndependent ContractorsAmended ComplaintWindow Accident
References
13
Case No. ADJ3640816 (SBR 0317873) ADJ1343688 (SBR 0317874)
Regular
Apr 10, 2009

ROBERT W. LEE vs. LAEGER'S INC., EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., ACCA/BHHC, MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim for cumulative injury where the liability period for employer Everest National Insurance Company (ENIC) was at issue. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the previous order to establish the cumulative injury ended on March 6, 2003, aligning with the applicant's first date of disability. Consequently, ENIC is now ordered to reimburse Mid-Century Insurance Company for 61% of benefits paid during the preceding one-year liability period. The Board affirmed the finding of a single cumulative injury, distinguishing it from prior cases with separate periods of disability and continued medical treatment.

Labor Code § 5500.5cumulative injuryspecific injurycompromise and releasetemporary total disabilitypermanent disability advancedate of injurylast day of workemployer liabilityapportionment
References
6
Case No. ADJ7464284
Regular
Aug 21, 2014

MIGUEL ANGEL GARCIA vs. INTERNATIONAL WINDOW, ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior award finding that Miguel Angel Garcia sustained industrial injuries to his back, neck, shoulders, and arms from cumulative trauma and a specific incident while employed by International Window. The Board found Dr. Donohue's medical reports constituted substantial evidence supporting the cumulative trauma finding and ongoing temporary disability. The Board also ruled that Garcia was permitted to select a new primary treating physician for his cumulative trauma claim, as he had not been properly notified of his prior physician's final determination for the specific injury. The defendant's contentions regarding lack of medical evidence, ongoing temporary disability, and improper physician selection were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCumulative Trauma InjuryTemporary Total DisabilityStatute of LimitationsAffirmative DefenseMedical EvidencePrimary Treating PhysicianDispute Resolution ProceduresFindings Award and Order
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kuechler v. 805 Middlesex Corp.

Plaintiffs Roger E. Kuechler, L. Cris Collingwood, and Edward Foehlinger filed a diversity suit against 805 Middlesex and Eastman Kodak, alleging personal injuries from keyboard equipment, with Foehlinger claiming loss of consortium. Defendants moved to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. The court, applying New York law, determined that the three-year statute of limitations applies from the time of injury and that the discovery rule under N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 214-c does not apply to repetitive stress injuries from keyboard use. While a single condition doesn't create multiple injuries, qualitatively different injuries occurring within the statutory period could sustain claims. The court conditionally granted the motion to dismiss, allowing plaintiffs 45 days to file an amended complaint alleging such qualitatively different injuries within the statutory period.

Repetitive Strain InjuryStatute of LimitationsProduct LiabilityKeyboard InjuryDiversity JurisdictionMotion to DismissDiscovery RulePersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumNew York Civil Practice Law and Rules
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 13,800 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