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

Graves v. City of New York

Gary Graves, a former licensed clinical social worker at Rikers Island for Corizon Health Inc., initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the City of New York and the New York City Department of Correction (DOC) after his security clearance was revoked. This revocation stemmed from a 2015 investigation into Corizon, which revealed systemic failures and security breaches at Rikers Island. Despite Graves's extensive rehabilitation efforts and a successful 14-year tenure at Rikers Island with no disciplinary issues, his security license was revoked based on criminal convictions from 1972-1987. Graves argued that the respondents failed to consider all eight factors mandated by Correction Law, article 23-A, §§ 752 and 753. The court, however, dismissed the petition, ruling that the Correction Law provisions do not apply to DOC's revocation of security clearance for individuals working at its facilities, interpreting such access as 'membership' in a law enforcement agency, which is exempt from the statute.

Security Clearance RevocationCorrection Law Article 23-ACriminal Background CheckLaw Enforcement ExemptionCPLR Article 78 ProceedingJudicial Review of Administrative DeterminationRehabilitation EvidenceRikers Island Correctional FacilityCivilian Employment in Law EnforcementAdministrative Appeal
References
23
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05608
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2019

Graves v. Stanclift, Ludemann, McMorris & Silvestri, P.C.

Plaintiff John A. Graves commenced a legal malpractice action against the defendant law firm, Stanclift, Ludemann, McMorris & Silvestri, P.C. Graves alleged that the defendant attorneys failed to provide adequate representation in an underlying action, specifically by neglecting discovery, not presenting evidence, and failing to advance his counterclaim. The Supreme Court partially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, allowing two claims of legal malpractice to proceed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, concluding that Graves' allegations, when liberally construed and accepted as true, sufficiently stated a cause of action for legal malpractice.

Legal MalpracticeAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentAttorney NegligenceDiscovery FailureCounterclaimProximate CauseDamagesProfessional Duty
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rubies v. Aqua Club, Inc.

Judge Read dissents from the majority's interpretation of 'permanent total disability' concerning acquired brain injuries under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Read argues for a narrower definition, requiring the inability to perform usual daily living activities, aligning with legislative intent for the 1996 amendment to section 11. This amendment aimed to strictly curtail third-party actions against employers by narrowly defining 'grave injuries.' The dissent stresses that the list of grave injuries is exhaustive, not illustrative, and should not be broadly interpreted. Therefore, the definition of 'permanent total disability' for an acquired brain injury should essentially require a vegetative state to protect employers as intended by the Legislature.

Workers' CompensationGrave InjuryAcquired Brain InjuryPermanent Total DisabilityLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionsDissenting OpinionJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bush v. Mechanicville Warehouse Corp.

This case involves an appeal from the denial of a third-party defendant's (Yankee One Dollar Stores, Inc.) motions for summary judgment against a defendant (Mechanicville Warehouse Corp.). The plaintiff, Bush, was injured at work and sued Mechanicville, who then brought a third-party action against Yankee for indemnification. Yankee argued that plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and that there was no written contractual indemnification agreement. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the 'grave injury' claim, finding sufficient evidence of permanent total disability due to a traumatic brain injury. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment for contractual indemnification, ruling that Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 requires an *express written contract* of indemnification from the employer, which was not present between Yankee and Mechanicville.

Summary JudgmentThird-Party ActionWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryContractual IndemnificationBrain InjuryPermanent Total DisabilityHoldover TenantExpress AgreementAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 1978

Xavier v. Grunberg

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially awarded Mireille Xavier $80,000 after a jury trial for injuries sustained when a ceiling collapsed in an apartment owned by the defendants Grunberg. However, this judgment was unanimously reversed and vacated, with the case remanded for a new trial. The appellate court identified two key errors: first, the trial court permitted the plaintiff to change her theory of notice from constructive to actual during the trial, causing surprise and prejudice to the defendants. Second, the jury was improperly instructed to consider evidence of post-accident repairs for general determination, rather than strictly limiting its application to the issue of premises control, which was not in dispute.

Premises LiabilityCeiling CollapseNotice RequirementConstructive NoticeActual NoticePleadings AmendmentSurprise EvidencePrejudice to DefenseJury Instructions ErrorSubsequent Remedial Measures
References
1
Case No. ADJ8270217
Regular
Apr 18, 2016

Xavier Gillette vs. Dillard Trucking, AIG

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Xavier Gillette's petition for removal, upholding the WCJ's order closing discovery and setting the case for trial. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which Gillette failed to demonstrate. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy for any potential future adverse decisions. The WCJ found Gillette's arguments regarding unconsidered agreements and changed circumstances lacked merit and did not justify disrupting the trial setting.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosurePretrial Conference Statement
References
4
Case No. ADJ6816541
Regular
Apr 26, 2010

XAVIER GRAVES vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award. The defendant sought apportionment of the applicant's permanent disability based on a prior award, arguing it represented overlapping conditions. However, the defendant failed to provide medical evidence in the current AMA Guides format for the prior disability. Consequently, the Board affirmed the amended award of 30% permanent disability, disallowing apportionment to the prior award.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardXavier GravesCounty of San Diego Sheriff's Departmentpermanent disabilityapportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMA GuidesPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleKopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Mercier v WCAB
References
2
Case No. ADJ8191986, ADJ8717495
Regular
Oct 13, 2014

MICHAEL BEN GRAVES vs. MV TRANSPORTATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denies Michael Ben Graves' two petitions for reconsideration and/or removal. The Board found the petitions were improper successive petitions or challenged non-final orders. Specifically, a prior order directing a vexatious litigant hearing was not a final determination, and the applicant failed to show prejudice or irreparable harm justifying removal. The Board affirmed its previous denial of the applicant's prior petitions and will proceed with the vexatious litigant hearing.

Vexatious litigantPetition for reconsiderationPetition for removalAppeals BoardFinal orderSubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harmSuccessive petitionNewly aggrievedExtraordinary remedy
References
8
Case No. ADJ8191986; ADJ8717495
Regular
Nov 06, 2014

MICHAEL BEN GRAVES vs. MV TRANSPORTATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied applicant Michael Ben Graves's emergency motion for a stay of proceedings. The WCAB found that no proceedings were currently pending before it, making the motion moot regarding appeals board actions. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate a connection between his pending Court of Appeal writ of review and the undecided vexatious litigant issue at the trial level, nor did he show irreparable harm. Consequently, the motion to stay trial-level proceedings was also denied.

Vexatious litigantEmergency motion for stayWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for writ of reviewCourt of AppealPresiding workers' compensation administrative law judgeWCAB Rule 10782Pro se applicantSubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harm
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2011

Tzic v. Kasampas

The injured plaintiff fell 15 feet from a sidewalk shed opening at a construction site due to inadequate safety devices. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against the owners, Christina Serafis Kasampas and Nicholas Serafis, and determined the plaintiff suffered a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. The court denied the owners' cross-motion for summary judgment on indemnification and partially denied MSS Construction Corp.'s cross-motion to dismiss claims. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this order, finding the statutory violation was a proximate cause of the injuries and rejecting arguments of contributory negligence or the owners' lack of control over safety.

Construction AccidentFall from HeightSidewalk ShedLabor Law 240(1)Strict LiabilityGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentIndemnification ClaimsProximate Cause
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 232 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