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

Claim of Biktjorn v. Worley Homes, Inc.

The claimant, a carpenter, entered into a contract to purchase a home from Worley Homes, Inc., agreeing to perform construction work as part of the down payment. While engaged in this work, using materials and a scaffold provided by Worley, the claimant fell and fractured his ankle, leading to a workers' compensation claim. The Referee and the Workmen's Compensation Board initially found an employer-employee relationship between the claimant and Worley. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the claimant was an independent contractor. The court found no evidence of Worley exercising control over the claimant's work, nor a right to discharge him, and noted that the lump-sum payment method further indicated an independent contractor status, based on the "relative-nature-of-work" and "control" tests.

Independent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipWorkers' CompensationRight to ControlRelative-Nature-of-Work TestScaffold AccidentAnkle FractureCarpenterHome Purchase AgreementDown Payment Work
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2001

Vanderwerff v. Home

This case concerns an appeal by a plaintiff and defendant Otis Elevator, Inc., from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The order granted summary judgment to Victoria Home, dismissing the plaintiff's personal injury complaint against it, and also granted judgment dismissing Otis Elevator's cross claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, holding that the plaintiff, having received Workers’ Compensation benefits from her general employer, was a special employee of Victoria Home. Consequently, the plaintiff's action against Victoria Home was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court found that Victoria Home exclusively controlled the manner and details of the plaintiff's work while she was employed there, thus establishing a special employment relationship.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityNegligenceTort LawNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Enriquez v. Home Lawn Care & Landscaping, Inc.

The claimant filed for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining an injury from falling off a ladder while working for Home Lawn Care and Landscaping, Inc. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially determined an employer-employee relationship existed and that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these findings and found Home Lawn Care had violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b) due to an untimely notice of controversy. Home Lawn Care appealed. The appellate court agreed that the Board erred in finding a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b) but upheld the Board's determination of an employer-employee relationship and that the injury arose from employment, thus modifying and affirming the Board's decisions.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipScope of EmploymentAccidental InjuryNotice of ControversySubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationAppellate ReviewLadder FallGutter Cleaning
References
12
Case No. No. 95 Civ. 5338 (JGK)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1995

Petition of Home Ins. Co.

The Home Insurance Company (Home) filed a petition to compel arbitration against Svedala Industries Inc. (Svedala) under the Federal Arbitration Act concerning disputed retrospective premiums. Svedala cross-moved to dismiss, arguing the dispute arose under an insurance policy without an arbitration clause and that Home had previously invoked federal jurisdiction in a Wisconsin action. The court clarified that only the Southern District of New York could compel arbitration, as specified in the agreement. The court granted Home's petition, concluding that the broad arbitration clause in the Retrospective Premium Agreement covered the dispute, and denied Svedala's cross-motion, thereby ordering the parties to proceed with arbitration.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActRetrospective Premium AgreementWorkers Compensation PolicyMotion to Compel ArbitrationStay of ProceedingsFirst-Filed RuleContract InterpretationScope of Arbitration ClauseBad Faith Claim
References
15
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00132 [234 AD3d 1078]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

James v. Marini Homes, LLC

Plaintiff, an employee of D&D Masonry Inc., was injured at a construction site by a thrown wooden board while working in an excavation. He sued Marini Homes, LLC, the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200(1) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed in part, dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, finding the injury was not due to an elevation-related risk or normal exposure to falling objects. However, it affirmed the denial of dismissal for the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, citing unresolved factual issues regarding the general contractor's supervisory control and knowledge of unsafe work practices.

Construction Site InjuryLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewGeneral Contractor LiabilityWorkplace SafetyElevation-Related RiskFalling Object InjuryOverhead ProtectionSafe Place to Work
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. ABC Carpet & Home

Plaintiff Richard Lee sued ABC Carpet & Home, Jerry Weinrib, and Paul Chapman for back wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, asserting he was an employee. Defendants sought summary judgment, contending Lee was an independent contractor. The court employed the five-factor 'Economic Reality Test' to determine employment status. Significant factual disputes emerged concerning employer control, Lee's potential for profit or loss, the required skill for the work, the permanence of the working relationship, and whether carpet installation was an integral part of ABC's business. Given these unresolved material facts, the court denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorSummary Judgment MotionEconomic Reality TestWage DisputesEmployment LawCarpet InstallersEmployer Control
References
24
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06463 [210 AD3d 858]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2022

Carranza v. JCL Homes, Inc.

The plaintiff, Ronal Carranza, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, regarding his personal injury claims against JCL Homes, Inc., stemming from an accident during demolition work. Carranza, allegedly injured by a falling cement board while on a ladder, sought damages under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court had granted summary judgment to the defendants on the Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) claims and common-law negligence, while denying Carranza's cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the defendants successfully demonstrated that Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable as the falling object was not being hoisted or secured. Additionally, Carranza failed to show a violation of the Industrial Code provision 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (c) for his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim or that the defendants exercised supervision over his work for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentDemolition WorkSummary JudgmentLabor Law ClaimsCommon-Law NegligenceFalling ObjectIndustrial Code ViolationSupervision and ControlAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Speedway Home Improvement Co. v. Gourdine

Speedway Home Improvement Co. (Speedway), a licensed contractor, challenged a decision by the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) via a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Speedway had contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Hannon for home renovation, but after commencing work and receiving partial payments, abandoned the project due to alleged underestimation, demanding further price increases which the Hannons refused. The Hannons filed a complaint with DCA, which, after a hearing, found Speedway guilty of abandoning the contract without justification and awarded the Hannons $21,110. Speedway argued that the DCA hearing denied due process and that the award was arbitrary and excessive. The court, however, found that Speedway received due process, the DCA's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and the monetary award was not a disproportionate penalty but merely compensated the Hannons for expenses incurred in hiring a second contractor. Consequently, the court denied Speedway's petition and dismissed the proceeding.

CPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewConsumer ProtectionHome Improvement ContractBreach of ContractDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceMonetary DamagesAgency DiscretionContract Abandonment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Robinson v. Lawrence Nursing Home

The decedent, a pot washer for Lawrence Nursing Home, was found stabbed to death on the employer's premises during his work shift. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially disallowed the claim for death benefits, concluding the death resulted from a personal act unrelated to his work activities, thereby overcoming the Section 21 presumption that an accident in the course of employment arose out of employment. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing that the evidence used by the board to overcome the presumption was uncorroborated hearsay. However, the appellate court affirmed the board's decision, asserting that the weight of the hearsay testimony and the reasonable inferences drawn from the circumstances were within the board's fact-finding province, providing substantial evidence for the disallowance. Consequently, the Board's disallowance of death benefits was upheld.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCourse of EmploymentArising out of EmploymentPresumption of CompensabilityHearsay EvidenceSubstantial EvidencePersonal ActEmployer PremisesManslaughter
References
1
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00653 [179 AD3d 1412]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of James v. Home Comfort Assistance, Inc.

Claimant Christina James sought workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a work-related ankle injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge established an employer-employee relationship and awarded benefits. Home Comfort Assistance, Inc. appealed this decision to the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application for review was denied due to incompleteness; specifically, referring to attached pages for the "Basis for Appeal" instead of providing the information directly on the form RB-89. Home Comfort then appealed the Board's denial to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the Board acted within its discretion by refusing to consider an application that did not fully comply with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1).

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewIncomplete ApplicationForm RB-89Administrative ReviewDiscretionary AuthorityProcedural ComplianceThird DepartmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipJurisdictional Defect
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 7,830 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