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
Nov 03, 2006

Burns v. Cook

Plaintiff Debra A. Burns brought an action against Oren F. Cook, the Adirondack Central School District Board of Education, and the Adirondack Central School District. Her claims included violations of federal and state laws related to free speech retaliation, substantive due process, equal protection, the ADA, New York Civil Service Law § 75-b, defamation, property interests, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion to dismiss for the ADA claim (due to untimeliness), defamation, damage to property interests and professional reputation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss for the free speech retaliation, substantive due process, equal protection, and New York Civil Service Law claims, allowing these to proceed.

First Amendment RetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionAmericans with Disabilities ActCivil Service LawEmployment DiscriminationPublic Employee RightsFreedom of SpeechMedical ConfidentialityMotion to Dismiss
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Presbyterian Homes of Western New York, Inc.

Plaintiff Lee H. Cook, an electrical technician, sustained a back injury while on a ladder to repair a light in the defendants' parking lot. Cook initially testified his foot slipped from one rung to another, causing the injury while carrying a light fixture. However, his employer, ABD Lighting Management Company, Inc., presented prior statements where Cook attributed the injury to twisting his back after the light fixture slipped off his shoulder. The appellate court found these inconsistent versions of the incident created a triable issue of fact, thus reversing the Supreme Court's grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The court also determined that Cook's work of repairing and altering the light pole constituted a protected activity under Labor Law § 240 (1), distinguishing it from mere routine maintenance. Consequently, the order was modified to deny the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Falling workerSummary judgmentTriable issue of factInconsistent statementsLadder accidentProtected activityRepair and alterationRoutine maintenance distinctionAppellate decision
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2017

Cook v. City of New York

Darlene Cook and Shaqueena Cook sued the City of New York, NYPD officers, and later ACS employees (Sasha Lawson, Cerissa Wright) for alleged constitutional violations including false arrest, failure to intervene, unlawful search, and due process violations. The claims stem from the emergency removal of Shaqueena Cook's children by ACS and NYPD officers and the subsequent arrest of the plaintiffs for obstruction and resisting arrest. Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add the ACS employees as defendants and new claims, which defendants opposed on grounds of futility, undue delay, and prejudice. The court granted the motion, finding the proposed claims plausible and rejecting the defendants' arguments.

Civil Rights LitigationFalse ArrestFailure to InterveneFourth Amendment ViolationsDue Process RightsUnlawful SearchFabrication of EvidenceRight to Fair TrialMotion to Amend ComplaintFederal Civil Procedure
References
78
Case No. ADJ2638408 (ANA 0371680)
Regular
Feb 05, 2009

ALLYSON COOK vs. AMERICAN EXPRESS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Allyson Cook's claim for increased workers' compensation benefits due to a worsened back condition. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the original judge's finding that Cook's permanent disability increased from 40% to 61%. However, the Board found that 50% of this increase was due to non-industrial degenerative changes, as supported by defense QME Dr. Kornblum's substantial medical opinion. Consequently, Cook is awarded permanent disability indemnity for a 51% rating after apportionment, with a corresponding attorney's fee.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent Disability RatingApportionmentNon-Industrial FactorsQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 4663Treating PhysicianVocational ExpertPetition to Reopen
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Przyborowski v. A&M Cook, LLC

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, concerning personal injuries sustained from a fall off an unsecured ladder at a work site. The initial order had denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and granted defendants' motions to dismiss claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The appellate court modified this decision, finding in favor of the plaintiff regarding Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). Specifically, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the defendants' cross-motions to dismiss claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against the defendant A&M Cook, LLC was affirmed. The appeal concerning the dismissal of common-law indemnification and contribution against PSG Construction Company, Inc. was dismissed as the plaintiff was not aggrieved by that portion of the order.

Ladder AccidentConstruction SafetyLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Personal Injury AppealSummary Judgment MotionProximate CauseIndustrial Code ViolationsPremises Owner LiabilityEmployer Liability
References
28
Case No. ADJ2104277 (LBO 0294626)
Regular
Jun 14, 2013

JEANETTE COOK vs. THE BOEING COMPANY/MCDONNEL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, CIGA by its servicing facility, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES for FREMONT INDEMNITY, in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a March 27, 2013, decision regarding Jeanette Cook's claim against The Boeing Company/McDonnell Douglas Corporation. This action was taken to allow for further review of the case's factual and legal issues, ensuring a just and reasoned decision. Pending a decision after reconsideration, all future communications must be filed in writing with the Board's Commissioners and not electronically.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decisionFurther proceedingsOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemDistrict Office
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 1998

Rodriguez v. McGinnis

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Section 1983 action against correctional officers McGinnis, Simmons, and Cook, alleging due process violations for an unwarranted 17-day keeplock confinement and Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment due to excessive force by Officer Cook. Magistrate Judge Grubin recommended dismissing claims against McGinnis and Simmons entirely, dismissing the due process claim against Cook, and denying dismissal of the excessive force claim. District Judge Rakoff conducted a de novo review, agreeing that the 17-day keeplock did not constitute an "atypical and significant hardship" under Sandin v. Conner, thus granting dismissal of the due process claim. However, the allegations of Officer Cook kicking and stepping on the plaintiff's back while handcuffed were deemed sufficient to proceed with the excessive force claim, and Cook's qualified immunity defense was denied at the pleading stage for this claim. The Court adopted all recommendations.

Pro Se LitigationCivil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983)Prisoner RightsExcessive ForceDue Process ClaimEighth AmendmentQualified ImmunityKeeplock ConfinementReport and RecommendationMemorandum Order
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Felker v. Corning Inc.

A plaintiff, employed as a painter by Cook, suffered injuries after falling from a ladder through a suspended ceiling at a worksite owned by Corning Incorporated and where Wellco was the general contractor. The court found that Labor Law § 240 (1) was violated as a matter of law, as no safety devices were provided to protect the plaintiff from the risk of falling over an alcove wall and through the ceiling. Summary judgment on liability was granted against Corning and Wellco. The court also affirmed the common-law indemnification of Wellco by Cook, rejecting Cook's arguments regarding negligence and contractual indemnification. The judgment and Appellate Division orders were affirmed.

Construction AccidentFall from HeightLabor LawSummary JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnityContractual IndemnityWorker SafetyElevated WorksiteSubcontractor Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manhattan Pizza Hut, Inc. v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

Chief Judge Cooke dissents from the majority's decision, which reversed an order finding Manhattan Pizza Hut, Inc.'s anti-nepotism rule discriminatory. The rule prohibits employees from supervising relatives, including spouses, thereby discriminating against married persons based solely on their marital status. Cooke argues that this policy violates Executive Law Section 296, which forbids employment discrimination based on marital status, as it targets married individuals while overlooking other close personal relationships. He emphasizes that this discrimination can discourage marriage or encourage divorce and impede employment opportunities, thus undermining the protected status of marriage. Cooke concludes that the rule is not a bona fide occupational qualification and votes to affirm the Appellate Division's order, which presumably ruled against Pizza Hut.

Anti-nepotism policyEmployment discriminationMarital status discriminationExecutive Law Section 296Bona fide occupational qualificationAppellate reviewDissenting opinionEmployee rightsWorkplace conflictFamily status
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of La Mountain (Westport Dist)

Chief Judge Cooke's dissenting opinion argues that the majority misinterprets Labor Law section 590 by applying unemployment eligibility standards for professional employees to nonprofessional public school employees. Cooke asserts that nonprofessional employees, as members of collective bargaining units, should only be disqualified from summer unemployment benefits if they possess a *written collective bargaining contract* for continued employment, as stipulated by subdivision 11. The dissent criticizes the majority for accepting

Unemployment benefitsPublic school employeesNonprofessional employeesCollective bargainingStatutory interpretationLabor LawCivil Service LawContract lawReasonable assuranceLegislative intent
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 82 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