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
Jan 22, 2013

Verdon v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Plaintiff sustained injuries after falling 14 feet from a trailing platform due to a broken guardrail. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) as the guardrail proved inadequate. The defendants' arguments regarding an unwitnessed accident not barring summary judgment and the rejection of a superseding cause defense were dismissed. However, the third-party defendants and second third-party defendant (lumber suppliers) were granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaints against them due to insufficient evidence to identify the specific lumber supplier for the broken guardrail, as lumber was commingled and discarded before inspection.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentGuardrail FailureConstruction AccidentFall from HeightThird-Party LiabilityLumber SupplierSuperseding CauseEvidentiary StandardUnwitnessed Accident
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2003

Medina v. MSDW 140 Broadway Property, L.L.C.

A window washer sued a building owner and a rigging company after falling four feet from a window washing rig due to a broken handrail while attempting to access a scaffold. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court determined that the steps to the scaffold were a 'device' within the meaning of the Labor Law and that the rigging company, responsible for installation and maintenance, acted as the owner's 'agent.' Defendants' appeal, raising new arguments about factual issues and pleading deficiencies, was unanimously affirmed as these claims were improperly presented for the first time on appeal.

Window Washing Rig AccidentLabor Law Section 240(1)Falling from HeightPremises LiabilityStatutory AgentPartial Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHandrail FailureElevated Work SafetyBuilding Owner Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1997

Garcia v. 1122 East 180th Street Corp.

Plaintiff, a carpenter, sustained serious injuries after falling 15-20 feet from a scaffold at a school construction site. The scaffold, designed with wheel locks for stability, had broken locks, leading the plaintiff to use sheetrock pieces to stabilize it, and he further placed an A-frame ladder atop the scaffold to gain additional height. The makeshift stabilization failed, causing the scaffold to move, overturn, and the plaintiff to fall. The IAS Court initially denied partial summary judgment on liability, citing unresolved factual issues, but the appellate court disagreed, finding the plaintiff's proofs unrebutted and the factual issues immaterial. The court determined that Labor Law § 240 (1) applied, imposing absolute liability on the defendant since the scaffold failed to provide proper protection, regardless of the plaintiff's own negligence or claims of being a "recalcitrant worker," thus reversing the lower court's decision and granting summary judgment on liability.

Labor LawScaffold AccidentConstruction InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityRecalcitrant Worker DefenseWorker SafetyElevated WorkPersonal InjuryAppellate Division
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walsh v. Sweet Associates, Inc.

Plaintiff Gregory M. Walsh, an electrician, sustained a broken back after falling 30 feet from a tubular steel tower erected by the defendant, a prime contractor, at a construction site in the State Education Building in Albany. Plaintiff and his wife subsequently filed an action against the defendant, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting a lack of control over the plaintiff or his employer, while the plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment. Initially, the Supreme Court denied both motions, finding questions of fact. However, on appeal, the court determined that the defendant, acting as a prime contractor, did not possess the requisite authority to supervise or control the plaintiff's work or the overall worksite, a precondition for liability under the cited Labor Laws. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, affirming that control over one's own equipment does not equate to control over the work being performed.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPrime Contractor LiabilityWorksite SafetyControl of WorkStatutory ViolationPersonal InjuryFall from Height
References
8
Case No. ADJ6750243
Regular
Aug 10, 2012

ROLANDO FIGUEREDO vs. COMET ELECTRIC, TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior finding of industrial injury to the applicant's feet. The Board found the defendant's petition for reconsideration was timely due to defective service of the original order. Ultimately, the Board concluded there was insufficient medical evidence to establish industrial injury to the applicant's feet. The prior finding of injury to the applicant's left thumb was otherwise affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRoland FigueredoComet ElectricTravelersFindings and OrderReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryLeft ThumbBilateral FeetElectrician
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2006

Claim of Cushion v. Brooklyn Botanic Garden

Claimant, an employee of Brooklyn Botanic Garden, sustained an injury after falling on a broken sidewalk in a public parking lot adjacent to her workplace while commuting home. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the case as a work-related injury, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, concluding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, reasoning that the risk of injury from the broken sidewalk was not a "special hazard" but a risk shared with the general public, thus falling outside the compensable "gray area" of the going and coming rule.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentGoing and Coming RulePublic Parking LotOff-Premises InjurySpecial HazardGray Area DoctrineSidewalk Fall
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. BB & BB Management Corp.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted summary judgment to defendants BB and BB Management Corp., Gesher Realty Corp., and Felix Gomez, dismissing the complaint against them. This decision was unanimously affirmed without costs. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the foreseeability of the assault on him. Evidence such as general complaints about criminal elements in the neighborhood, police reports of an apartment robbery, and two incidents of car vandalism were deemed insufficient to demonstrate that the assault was reasonably predictable. Additionally, while the plaintiff testified that the front door lock was broken, there was no evidence indicating how long it had been broken or that the defendants had been notified. Consequently, the defendants' Worker's Compensation defense was rendered moot.

ForeseeabilityAssaultSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityNegligenceWorker's CompensationAppellate ReviewBroken LockCriminal ActivityNotice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2014

Myiow v. City of New York

The plaintiff, an employee of Brooklyn Welding Corp., was injured at Harlem Hospital when he fell 13-14 feet from a flatbed truck while preparing steel beams for hoisting, after a piece of dunnage broke. He moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), arguing a lack of proper safety devices. The defendants cross-moved, contending the accident was not an elevation-related hazard contemplated by the statute. The motion court granted the plaintiff's motion and denied the defendants' cross-motion, a decision subsequently affirmed on appeal. The court found that a fall from 13-14 feet constitutes an elevation-related risk and that the provision of an inadequate safety harness established liability.

elevation-related risksummary judgmentliabilityinadequate safety devicesconstruction accidentfall from heightflatbed truckdunnageLabor Law § 240 (1)appellate division
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lockwood v. National Valve Manufacturing Co.

The court reversed an order denying the plaintiffs' application for partial summary judgment of liability based on a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The case involved a plaintiff who was injured while working on a steel beam approximately 100 feet above the ground when a 10-ton pipe fell from temporary supports. The plaintiff either fell or jumped to avoid the pipe, landing on a catwalk 25 feet below. The court emphasized that Labor Law § 240 (1) is designed to protect workers from falls or falling objects at elevated work sites and imposes strict liability on owners or contractors, regardless of their control over the work. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.

Labor LawElevated Work SiteFalling ObjectSummary JudgmentStatutory ViolationWorker InjuryConstruction AccidentAppellate DivisionPersonal InjuryPremises Liability
References
4
Case No. ADJ7832100
Regular
Jan 09, 2017

William Reid vs. Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund

This case involves a Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) claim where the applicant, William Reid, sought benefits due to a cumulative injury to his feet and back. The SIBTF petitioned for reconsideration, arguing the applicant's subsequent injury alone did not meet the statutory threshold for benefits and that prior impairments were asymptomatic or improperly assessed. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's report. The WCJ found the applicant met the 5% opposite and corresponding impairment threshold with a combined permanent disability rating of 10% from his feet and back, and that pre-existing conditions like hypertension and gout qualified as disabling impairments. Ultimately, the WCJ concluded the applicant was rendered totally permanently disabled, establishing SIBTF liability.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundLabor Code section 4751opposite and corresponding thresholdpermanent disabilitycumulative traumaasymptomatic impairmentvocational rehabilitation consultantOrthopedic AMEDr. DevorDr. Panting
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 270 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