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
Mar 23, 2000

Ramnarine v. Memorial Center for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jagdeo Ramnarine, an employee of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, suffered a laceration at the Memorial Center for Cancer and Allied Diseases. He subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit. The defendant, Memorial Center, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as both the Center and the Hospital operate as a single integrated employer despite their separate legal entities. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant. The court found substantial evidence supporting the integrated employer argument, thereby limiting the plaintiff's remedy to workers' compensation benefits and dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against the defendant.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityIntegrated Employer DoctrineSummary Judgment ReversalNegligence ClaimCross Claims DismissedCorporate Alter EgoCommon ControlBronx CountyAppellate DivisionLabor Law
References
11
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02445 [237 AD3d 1500]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2025

Matter of Cooper (Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Ctr.)

This case involves an appeal from an order that vacated an arbitration award concerning the termination of a registered nurse, Wendy Cooper, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center. Cooper was terminated for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which was later declared null and void in an unrelated case. The arbitrator, however, upheld Cooper's termination based on the collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court vacated the arbitration award, reinstating Cooper, finding it irrational and against public policy. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, confirming the arbitration award. It held that the Supreme Court erred in vacating the award, as petitioners failed to prove it violated a strong public policy or was irrational under CPLR 7511 (b), reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review for arbitration awards.

Arbitration AwardVacaturPublic PolicyIrrationalityCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewJudicial Review Limitation
References
9
Case No. ADJ8734182
Regular
Dec 17, 2018

JONATHAN MCINTYRE vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

This case involves an applicant, Jonathan McIntyre, a deputy sheriff, claiming bladder cancer as a work-related injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior decision, finding that the medical evidence regarding the latency period of the applicant's bladder cancer was insufficient. The WCAB determined further development of the medical record is required to accurately assess when the cancer "developed" and "manifested" relative to the statutory presumption period. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by the Workers' Compensation Judge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy SheriffBladder CancerLabor Code section 3212.1Presumption of CompensabilityLatency PeriodAgreed Medical EvaluatorManifestation of DiseaseDevelopment of CancerStatutory Presumption
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. Humboldt Dye Works, Inc.

Claimant, a dyer for 25 years, developed bladder cancer attributed by the Workmen's Compensation Board to occupational exposure to aniline dyes. The employer appealed, disputing the causal link between finished dyes and cancer. Expert witnesses for the claimant, including a chemist and two urologists, presented testimony asserting that dyes containing carcinogens, such as alpha and beta naphthalene, could cause bladder cancer through absorption and inhalation. They also referenced statistical evidence supporting their claims. Despite contradictory testimony from the employer's medical experts, the court affirmed the Board's finding of a causal relationship, concluding that substantial evidence supported the occupational disease determination.

Occupational DiseaseBladder CancerAniline DyesCarcinogen ExposureCausal RelationshipMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial Evidence ReviewWorkers' Compensation AppealUrological ConditionDye Industry Worker
References
4
Case No. Index No. 161136/17 Appeal No. 15141 Case No. 2021-02236
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2022

Quiroz v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jose Alfonso Perez Quiroz, a construction worker, sustained injuries after falling from an unstable scaffold at a site managed by Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases and general contractor Turner Construction Company. He initiated legal action under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting Quiroz's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), finding the unsecured scaffold to be a proximate cause of his fall. The appellate court subsequently dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim as academic.

Construction AccidentScaffold FallLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment AppealPlaintiff LiabilityDefendant LiabilityProximate CausationRecalcitrant Worker Defense
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Manka v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

David Manka, an employee, died from ureteral cancer in 2008 after being diagnosed in 2007. His widow, the claimant, sought workers' compensation death benefits, asserting that his cancer was causally linked to his occupational exposure to ortho-toluidine. The employer disputed this, arguing no established link between ortho-toluidine and ureteral cancer existed, only bladder cancer. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board credited the claimant's expert, who linked ortho-toluidine to ureteral cancer due to similar cell types and the rarity of direct studies. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the determination that decedent's death was due to an occupational disease.

Occupational DiseaseUreteral CancerOrtho-toluidine ExposureCausal RelationshipWorkers' Compensation BenefitsExpert Medical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewCredibility Assessment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Valenti v. Penn Plax Plastics

The claimant, exposed to asbestos between 1965 and 1972, developed asbestosis, asbestos-related pleural disease, and lung cancer. His 1995 workers' compensation claim was denied by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board, which found his lung cancer causally related to asbestos exposure occurring before July 1, 1974, thus falling under the 'dust disease' rule requiring total disability for compensation. The claimant appealed, arguing lung cancer is not a dust disease. The appellate court reversed and remitted the decision, clarifying that while lung cancer itself is not a dust disease, the pre-1974 restriction applies if it's causally related to a dust disease like asbestosis. The court noted the Board failed to make a specific finding on this causal link.

asbestos exposurelung cancerasbestosisworkers' compensationdust diseasetotal disabilitypartial disabilitycausationremittalappellate review
References
9
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01671 [225 AD3d 536]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2024

Carranza v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order concerning a construction accident where plaintiff Delis Vasquez Carranza was injured by a falling 150-pound panel in an elevator shaft. The Appellate Division granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, determining that the injury resulted from a falling object that should have been secured by a safety device. Concurrently, it affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against defendant Turner Construction Company. The court concluded that these claims were properly dismissed because the accident stemmed from the means and methods of the work, which were directed and controlled by the plaintiff's employer, and the general contractor's general supervisory powers were insufficient to establish liability for such claims.

Labor Law 240(1)Falling Object InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary Judgment MotionAppellate Division DecisionGeneral Contractor ResponsibilityEmployer ControlWorkplace Safety ViolationsElevator Shaft IncidentNegligence Dismissal
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06210
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2023

Tisselin v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Plaintiff Frisner Tisselin, a project manager, sustained injuries at a construction site when a roof access ladder detached from a personnel hoist and struck him. The ladder's attachment failed due to a broken weld on a washer. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and largely granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order, granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, finding the hoist inadequate for its safety purpose and the ladder an essential component. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Memorial Hospital and Turner Construction due to a lack of actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of Safeway Atlantic, LLC's motion to dismiss the common-law negligence claim, citing an issue of fact regarding negligent installation and inspection of the hoists.

Construction site injuryPersonnel hoist accidentLadder detachmentLabor Law § 240 (1) liabilityLabor Law § 200 dismissalCommon-law negligenceSummary judgmentAppellate DivisionSafety device inadequacyElevation-related hazard
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nembhard v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Plaintiff Inez Nembhard sued Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center for age and race discrimination. A jury found for Nembhard on age discrimination, awarding $110,000 back pay, and found for Memorial on race discrimination. Memorial moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, alleging insufficient evidence, but the court denied these motions. The court found sufficient evidence of pretext, disproportionate punishment, and overtly discriminatory statements supporting the age discrimination verdict. Nembhard's motion for attorney fees and costs was granted, awarding her $100,893.75 in fees and $6,880.64 in costs.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationJury VerdictPost-Trial MotionsAttorney Fees and CostsBack Pay AwardLiquidated DamagesPretextual FiringWillful DiscriminationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 226 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