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

Widera v. Ettco Wire & Cable Corp.

This document presents a dissenting opinion concerning the dismissal of a common-law negligence claim. The case involves Catherine Widera, an infant plaintiff, who alleges severe prenatal injuries from lead exposure. These injuries are attributed to lead dust brought home by her father, Matthew Widera, from his employment at Ettco Wire and Cable Corp., which subsequently exposed her pregnant mother. The dissenting judge argues for the reinstatement of the negligence cause of action, asserting that the defendant employer owed a foreseeable duty of care to the employee's unborn child. The opinion critiques the 'lack of duty' dismissal, advocating for an expansion of liability in light of evolving legal precedents, policy considerations, and scientific evidence regarding 'fouling the nest' syndrome.

Prenatal InjuryLead PoisoningEmployer NegligenceDuty of CareForeseeabilityToxinsWorkplace SafetyCommon LawJudicial ActivismDissenting Opinion
References
30
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 03103 [138 AD3d 598]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

Bennett v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

Plaintiffs, who were general foremen in their 50s and 60s, brought claims against Time Warner Cable Inc., alleging age-based discrimination under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws based on a disparate impact theory. They contended that the defendant's decision to eliminate the general foreman position disproportionately affected them compared to younger workers. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the defendant's motion to dismiss these claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, reaffirming that disparate impact claims for age discrimination are cognizable under both the State and City Human Rights Laws, and noting the requirement to construe the City Human Rights Law broadly in favor of plaintiffs.

Age DiscriminationDisparate ImpactHuman Rights LawMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewJudicial PrecedentState LawCity LawEmployment Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2003

Claim of Feeney v. Island Cable Construction, Inc.

Claimant, a telephone cable splicer, sustained a partial amputation of his left ring finger, which did not heal properly, leading him to seek workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board ruled he had a 20% schedule loss of use of the left ring finger. Claimant appealed, contending the loss should be applied to the entire left hand. Conflicting medical testimony was presented by an orthopedic surgeon, Richard Parker, supporting the claimant, and physician Jayaraj Kumar, who supported the Board's finding. The Board, exercising its authority to evaluate medical witness credibility, affirmed the initial finding. The court upheld the Board's decision, also rejecting the claimant's allegations of bias against the WCLJ.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseFinger AmputationMedical TestimonyCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewJudicial BiasOrthopedic SurgeryDistal Phalanx InjuryGrip Strength
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers Ex Rel. Roy v. Rome Cable Corp.

This case involves plaintiffs suing Rome Cable Corporation regarding the termination of their Hourly Retirement Income Plan. Rome Cable, facing financial distress, terminated the plan under SEPPAA, leading the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to become the 4042 Trustee, assuming guaranteed benefits and releasing Rome Cable from further liability through a settlement agreement. A 4049 Trustee was later appointed by the PBGC to pursue unguaranteed benefits from Rome Cable. Plaintiffs brought several causes of action alleging underfunding, improper termination, breach of a collective bargaining agreement, and breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all counts, finding that the PBGC's role as trustee precluded direct claims against Rome Cable for guaranteed benefits, that the labor claims were barred by the plaintiffs' failure to comply with grievance and arbitration provisions, and that the ERISA fiduciary claims were time-barred. The court also determined that jurisdiction could not be predicated upon section 4070 of ERISA.

Pension Plan TerminationERISASEPPAASummary JudgmentFiduciary Duty BreachStatute of LimitationsLabor-Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProceduresTrust Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1999

Harris v. Rodriguez

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted summary judgment to defendants Time Warner Cable, Miguel Rodriguez, and Queens Cable Contractors, dismissing a plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff, a cable installer, had fallen from a shed roof while working after being unable to use a ladder due to access constraints. This appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, denying the defendants' motions for summary judgment and reinstating the complaint. The court found that the "recalcitrant worker" defense did not apply, as there was no evidence the plaintiff deliberately refused to use an available safety device. Consequently, claims under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) were reinstated.

Summary Judgment ReversalRecalcitrant Worker DefenseLabor LawWorkplace SafetyLadder AccessPersonal Injury LawAppellate Court DecisionCable Installation AccidentConstruction Site AccidentWorker Rights
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2003

Blyer v. STATEN ISLAND CABLE LLC.

Petitioner, Alvin Blyer, Regional Director of Region 29 of the National Labor Relations Board, sought a preliminary injunction against respondents Time Warner Cable and Local 3. The injunction aimed to prevent the enforcement of Section 7 of their collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which the petitioner argued constituted an improper 'union signatory' agreement, violating Section 8(e) of the NLRA. This section limited Time Warner's ability to subcontract work only to companies that had agreements with Local 3. The court found reasonable cause to believe that Section 7 had an improper secondary purpose, dictating the labor policies of non-signatory entities like Advantage Cable, rather than genuinely preserving work for the bargaining unit. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, enjoining the respondents from enforcing the contested provisions of Section 7 of the CBA.

Collective Bargaining AgreementUnion Signatory AgreementUnfair Labor PracticesPreliminary InjunctionNLRA Section 8(e)NLRA Section 10(l)Work PreservationSecondary ObjectiveSubcontractingLabor Dispute
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Randall v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee, was injured after falling from a ladder while performing cable installation work. The incident occurred during the replacement of an outdoor cable filter, which was part of a larger service upgrade involving significant interior structural alterations. Plaintiff initiated an action alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court determined that the filter replacement was an integral and ancillary part of the overall alteration project, thereby falling under the protections of Labor Law § 240 (1). Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability for the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action.

Ladder AccidentLabor Law Section 240(1)Workplace SafetyStructural AlterationAncillary WorkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryCable InstallationStatutory Interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jean-Louis v. Metropolitan Cable Communications, Inc.

Current and former Metro technicians sued Metropolitan Cable Communications, Inc., its executives, and Time Warner Cable of New York City for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant Time Warner moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not a joint employer of the technicians. The Court applied the 'economic reality' test, assessing factors of formal and functional control. Finding that Time Warner lacked significant control over hiring, firing, schedules, payment, or records, and that most functional control factors also weighed against joint employment, the Court granted Time Warner's motion for summary judgment. The sole factor supporting joint employment, that Metro technicians worked exclusively for Time Warner, was deemed insufficient to establish an employer relationship.

FLSAOvertime PayJoint EmploymentEconomic Reality TestSummary JudgmentSubcontractingCable TechniciansEmployer-Employee RelationshipFormal ControlFunctional Control
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paragon Cable Manhattan v. P & S 95th Street Associates

The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reviewed an order concerning a plaintiff's motion to dismiss affirmative defenses and defendants' cross-motion to amend their answer to assert a counterclaim. The court modified the initial order by dismissing the affirmative defense of unclean hands and denying the amendment of the answer, while otherwise affirming. Defendants' appeal regarding partial summary judgment to enforce a cable television order was dismissed as moot following a stipulation allowing cable installation. The court found no evidentiary support for defendants' allegations of vandalism by plaintiff's employees, citing a lack of proof and contradictory testimony. Additionally, the amendment of the answer to include a counterclaim was deemed improper due to prior repair of damages by a third party and prejudice to the plaintiff.

Cable Television FacilitiesVandalism AllegationsAffirmative Defenses DismissalCounterclaim Amendment DeniedSummary Judgment AppealMootness DoctrineEvidentiary StandardsPrejudice to PlaintiffAppellate ReviewStipulation Agreement
References
5
Case No. 529971
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2021

Matter of McLean v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

Claimant Allen McLean sustained a work-related injury to his lower back in May 2013. His treating physician, Robert Tiso, requested a variance for medical marihuana to treat chronic pain, which the employer denied. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially upheld the denial, but the Workers' Compensation Board subsequently modified this decision, granting the variance request. The employer appealed the Board's decision to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's determination to grant the variance was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation LawChronic Pain TreatmentMedical Marihuana AuthorizationVariance Denial OverturnedAppellate Division Third DepartmentMedical NecessityEmployer LiabilityTreatment Guidelines DeviationLumbar Disc DegenerationRadiculopathy
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 107 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