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

McGlone v. Contract Callers, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael McGlone initiated a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action against Contract Callers, Inc. (CCI), Michael McGuire, and William Tim Wertz, alleging unpaid overtime for work performed before and after recorded workdays and during meal breaks. McGlone sought conditional certification for a nationwide collective action of Field Service Representatives (FSRs), asserting a common policy of wage violations, including uncompensated preparatory and concluding tasks, and automatic meal break deductions despite working through them. The court applied a two-step analysis for FLSA collective actions, focusing on the lenient "notice stage" standard. While the plaintiff claimed company-wide misconduct, his evidence for a nationwide class was deemed insufficient, relying primarily on "information and belief." Consequently, the court denied conditional certification for a nationwide class but granted it for FSRs employed in CCI's New York Division, where McGlone demonstrated direct personal knowledge of the alleged violations and supervisory directives. Additionally, the statute of limitations was equitably tolled as of the motion's filing date due to the court's processing time.

FLSACollective ActionConditional CertificationOvertime PayWage ViolationsMeal BreaksUncompensated WorkField Service RepresentativesEquitable TollingNew York Division
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim Eccles v. Truck-Lite, Inc.

The claimant sustained a head injury after falling from a chair at work and sought workers' compensation benefits. The employer and its carrier disputed the claim, attributing the fall to a non-work-related medical condition. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the accident and injuries were not caused by the claimant's preexisting diabetic condition and awarded benefits. The employer and carrier appealed. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting the Board's authority to assess witness credibility and medical expert opinions, and found the presumption of compensability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 had not been rebutted. The court also upheld the Board's rejection of the argument that the claim should be denied due to a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a.

Workers' CompensationFall from ChairHead InjuryDiabetic ConditionHypoglycemiaPresumption of CompensabilityCredibility AssessmentMedical Expert OpinionAppellate ReviewSection 21 WCL
References
4
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04773 [129 AD3d 471]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2015

Serowik v. Leardon Boiler Works Inc.

Jozef Serowik, an employee of GDT, sustained severe hand injuries while lowering a heavy tank, which was part of a boiler installation. The incident led to claims under Labor Law sections. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Serowik partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants appealed, and the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court dismissed Serowik's common law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and granted conditional summary judgment on common law indemnification to the defendants. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the finding of liability against defendants under Labor Law § 240 (1), determining that Leardon Boiler Works Inc. could be held liable as an agent of the owner.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentIndemnificationAppellate ReviewGravity AccidentScaffolding LawOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityProximate Cause
References
5
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06537 [165 AD3d 667]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Matter of Heritage Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

This case involves an appeal by Heritage Mechanical Services, Inc. (petitioner) from a judgment denying its petition to annul a determination by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (DPW). The dispute stemmed from a general construction contract awarded to Posillico/Skanska, JV for a waste water treatment plant upgrade. Heritage was listed as a subcontractor for HVAC work, but a disagreement arose over the agreed-upon amount, with Heritage claiming a higher price for alternates not included in the initial bid figure. DPW approved Posillico's request to perform the HVAC work itself, citing Heritage's refusal as a 'legitimate construction need' under General Municipal Law § 101 (5). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding DPW's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or an abuse of discretion, and thus dismissed the proceeding.

Public Works ContractSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Municipal LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProject Labor AgreementHVAC SubcontractBid DisputeContractual Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 1975

Claim of Alperin v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

The claimant, on March 12, 1971, experienced acute heart failure or insufficiency due to excessive work effort, aggravating a pre-existing heart defect caused by a damaged aortic valve. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that a subsequent operation to replace the defective aortic valve and its sequelae were causally related to this work activity. Appellants contested this finding, arguing a lack of substantial evidence. However, the record contained unequivocal medical testimony confirming that the specific work effort caused the condition to become symptomatic, necessitating the operation to alleviate symptoms. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding a clear causal link.

Heart ConditionWork-Related InjuryCausationAortic Valve ReplacementMedical TestimonyPre-existing ConditionWorkers' Compensation AppealSurgical NecessityAggravation of Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 1978

Claim of Spasiano v. Empire City Iron Works

The claimant, a mechanic hired in 1974, suffered a low back injury at work in November 1974. He had a pre-existing medical condition, having undergone subtotal gastrectomy in 1965. The employer's insurance carrier filed a C-250 seeking reimbursement from the Special Fund, alleging a pre-existing permanent physical impairment. To claim reimbursement, it needed to be established that the employer hired or continued the claimant with knowledge of the impairment and a good faith belief in its permanency, and that the impairment materially and substantially increased the disability. Conflicting medical opinions were presented regarding whether the claimant's prior stomach condition materially and substantially increased his disability. The Workers' Compensation Board found, based on medical evidence including Dr. Lehv's report, that the prior stomach condition did not materially and substantially increase the disability. This finding, supported by substantial evidence, led to the affirmation of the Board's decision, discharging the Special Fund from liability.

Workers' Compensation BoardSpecial Fund LiabilityPre-existing ConditionSubtotal GastrectomyLow Back InjuryMaterially and Substantially Greater DisabilityMedical EvidenceReimbursementEmployabilityPermanency
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wiltsie v. Owens Corning Fiberglass

Claimant suffered a compensable low back injury in 1995, continuing work with restrictions and ADA accommodations. In 2003, the employer's decision to change his shift caused claimant stress, leading his primary physician to diagnose chest pain syndrome, agoraphobia, and depression, and advise him to stop working. Initially awarded benefits for a period, the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently denied further benefits, concluding that claimant's departure from work was for reasons unrelated to his back disability. Claimant appealed, contending his back injury prevented him from the new shift, but the Board's determination, supported by other evidence, found he left due to stress from the shift dispute rather than his back condition. The Board's decision, which included an assessment of claimant's testimony and medical evidence, was affirmed, as it was supported by credible evidence.

Low Back InjuryAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Workplace AccommodationShift Schedule ChangeStress-Related IllnessChest Pain SyndromeAgoraphobiaDepression DiagnosisCredibility of Medical OpinionPermanent Partial Disability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bruno v. Kelly Temp Service

In 1997, the claimant suffered a noncompensable lower back injury, but continued to work 40-60 hours per week for 18 months without missing work despite intermittent pain and medical treatment. In February 2000, she sustained a work-related lower back injury while working for Eastman Kodak Company. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that her award should be apportioned 75% to the 1997 injury and 25% to the 2000 injury, based on the preexisting condition being symptomatic and actively treated. The appellate court reversed this decision, clarifying that apportionment applies only when the prior condition constitutes a 'disability in a compensation sense,' not merely a symptomatic condition. Since the claimant was fully employed and able to perform her duties effectively, her prior condition was not disabling, and the Board's finding lacked substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentPreexisting ConditionDisabilitySubstantial EvidenceReversalRemittalBack InjuryWork-Related InjurySymptomatic Condition
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Russin v. Louis N. Picciano & Son

Plaintiff George Russin, employed by general contractor A. J. Cerasaro, Inc., sustained injuries while dismantling a scaffold at the En-Joie Golf Course in Endicott, New York. He sued prime contractors Mateo Electric Co., Inc., Louis N. Picciano & Son, and Stellmack Air Conditioning Refrigeration Corp., alleging violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240, and 241. These prime contractors held separate contracts with the owner, the Village of Endicott, and not with Cerasaro, the general contractor. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the prime contractors were not liable because they lacked contractual privity with the general contractor and thus had no authority to control the plaintiff's specific work or the site activity that led to his injury. The decision reiterates that liability under these Labor Law sections primarily rests with owners and general contractors, or their agents who have been delegated specific work and control over that work.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 200Labor Law 240Labor Law 241Prime Contractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor ResponsibilityScaffold AccidentWorkplace SafetyControl of WorkStatutory Agent
References
4
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02068
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2021

Ging v. F.J. Sciame Constr. Co., Inc.

This personal injury action concerns Albert Ging's accident at a construction site in Brooklyn while employed by Atlantic Detail & Erection Corp., a sub-subcontractor. Ging fell from a steel tube but prevented a full fall, subsequently claiming liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted Ging partial summary judgment against the construction manager, F.J. Sciame Construction Co., Inc., and also awarded Sciame conditional contractual indemnification against Koenig Iron Works, Inc., the structural steel subcontractor. Furthermore, Koenig was awarded conditional contractual indemnification against Atlantic. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed these orders, finding Ging's testimony established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment and that the defendants failed to raise a material issue of fact regarding the accident's occurrence. The court also upheld the conditional contractual indemnification awards based on the specific contract language and the antisubrogation rule.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffolding LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionConstruction AccidentFall from HeightStructural SteelSubcontractor Liability
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 8,496 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